What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5164834 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 5164834?

Property Damage: $1,350.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5164834 D…: $7,114.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,300.00 awarded to landlord; Ceiling: $4,215.00 awarded to landlord; Doors: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Floor: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5164834?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5164834?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12351936-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5164834 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 5164834?

Property Damage: $1,350.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5164834 D…: $7,114.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,300.00 awarded to landlord; Ceiling: $4,215.00 awarded to landlord; Doors: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Floor: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5164834?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5164834?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12351936-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5164834 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5164834 — net $18,629.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5164834 dated 15/04/2025	$7,114.25	Previous order application 5164834 dated 15/04/2025
Repairs: floor	$650.00	Repairs: floor
Repairs: ceiling	$4,215.00	Repairs: ceiling
Repairs: doors	$500.00	Repairs: doors
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$2,500.00	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Electrical cable repairs and rewiring	$2,300.00	Electrical cable repairs and rewiring
Electrical repairs: ceiling lights	$1,350.00	Electrical repairs: ceiling lights
Net award	$18,629.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$18,629.25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Vivian Nguyen must pay [The landlord/s] immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
All other claims are dismissed

Reasons

Only the landlord, represented by [the landlord’s representative], attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. As the tenant has been notified, the hearing proceeded.
This is a fixed term tenancy which began on 16 September 2024 and was due to end on 16 September 2025. The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy for abandonment, rent arrears, water charges, compensation, payment from the bond, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Following a hearing on 15 April 2025, the tenancy was terminated, and the landlord was awarded rent arrears, water rates and compensation for meth testing. The bond was paid to the landlord. The amount awarded to the landlord in the previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
The hearing was adjourned part-heard, and the balance of the landlord’s claim was scheduled for a further hearing.
A second hearing was held on 24 June 2025. At this hearing, the landlord explained that he was having problems dealing with the insurance company and there were delays. The work had not been undertaken, and the property was still not repaired.
The landlord was given additional time to provide further evidence, as detailed in the order. No further evidence has been provided. General legal principles
In this jurisdiction, it is the party making the claim that has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means that the party must establish with evidence that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.
Exemplary damages are penalties and can only be awarded for an unlawful act, as set out in various sections of the RTA and as listed in Schedule 1A of the Act. They are different from compensation and are designed to punish and deter, more like a fine. Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion. Where one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act, before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA.

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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The landlord’s evidence shows that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord has claimed the cost of deep cleaning, based on a quotation for $5,500.00. This work has not been undertaken. Based on the limited evidence provided, $2,500.00 is considered reasonable compensation for the landlord’s cleaning and rubbish removal costs. This is because there is limited evidence for the extent of cleaning claimed, and the report following meth testing has not been provided. General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord seeks compensation for tenant damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of 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 age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has provided photographic evidence of the damage from the alleged cultivation of cannabis, and quotations from a builder and electrician for repairs. There is no photographic evidence showing the condition of the premises before the tenancy began. As noted earlier, the repair work has not been undertaken.
Based on the available evidence, it is accepted that the following damage was caused during the tenancy, and this damage was most likely intentional: • Floor: there were holes in the floorboards, in each room. The repair cost is $650.00. • Ceiling: There was extensive damage, as shown in the photographs. According to the builder’s quote, 60% of the ceiling was damaged. The cost of repairs is $4,215.00. • Doors: The doors and doorstops had been removed and needed to be reinstated with new hinges, locks, and doorstops. The cost is $500.00 for a total of five doors. • Electrical cabling and wiring: There was damage to wiring and cables, and the repair cost, based on the quotation from the electrician, is $2,300.00. • Ceiling lights: a total of 15 lights had to be replaced, at a cost of $1,350.00.
The above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage, so the above amounts are awarded. Other claims
The landlord seeks $5,500.00 for new carpet, based on the builder’s quote. While noting that the carpet was damaged, no evidence has been provided regarding the condition of the carpet before the tenancy began, or the age of the carpet. Furthermore, the quotation is from a builder, rather than a carpet retailer, and lacks the necessary details. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.
There are other items listed in the quotations, and because of the limited information provided by the landlord, they have not been established, to the required standard, and are dismissed. Exemplary damages
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by cultivating cannabis at the premises.
Section 40(2)(b) of the RTA prohibits the tenant from using the premises or permitting the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
In this case, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence for the Tribunal to be able to conclude that the premises was being used for an unlawful purpose. The landlord’s evidence is limited to confirmation that the matter has been reported to police, and photographs of the damage. It does not include other supporting information, such as a police report, details of the outcome of the police investigation, a report following testing, or any other independent report, such as from the landlord’s insurer.
Accordingly, I decline to award exemplary damages. Name suppression and filing fee
An application for suppression has been made by the landlord. The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details, in view of the landlord being substantially successful.
The filing fee has previously been awarded to the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5164834 — net $18,629.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5164834 dated 15/04/2025	$7,114.25	Previous order application 5164834 dated 15/04/2025
Repairs: floor	$650.00	Repairs: floor
Repairs: ceiling	$4,215.00	Repairs: ceiling
Repairs: doors	$500.00	Repairs: doors
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$2,500.00	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Electrical cable repairs and rewiring	$2,300.00	Electrical cable repairs and rewiring
Electrical repairs: ceiling lights	$1,350.00	Electrical repairs: ceiling lights
Net award	$18,629.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$18,629.25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Vivian Nguyen must pay [The landlord/s] immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
All other claims are dismissed

Reasons

Only the landlord, represented by [the landlord’s representative], attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. As the tenant has been notified, the hearing proceeded.
This is a fixed term tenancy which began on 16 September 2024 and was due to end on 16 September 2025. The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy for abandonment, rent arrears, water charges, compensation, payment from the bond, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Following a hearing on 15 April 2025, the tenancy was terminated, and the landlord was awarded rent arrears, water rates and compensation for meth testing. The bond was paid to the landlord. The amount awarded to the landlord in the previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
The hearing was adjourned part-heard, and the balance of the landlord’s claim was scheduled for a further hearing.
A second hearing was held on 24 June 2025. At this hearing, the landlord explained that he was having problems dealing with the insurance company and there were delays. The work had not been undertaken, and the property was still not repaired.
The landlord was given additional time to provide further evidence, as detailed in the order. No further evidence has been provided. General legal principles
In this jurisdiction, it is the party making the claim that has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means that the party must establish with evidence that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.
Exemplary damages are penalties and can only be awarded for an unlawful act, as set out in various sections of the RTA and as listed in Schedule 1A of the Act. They are different from compensation and are designed to punish and deter, more like a fine. Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion. Where one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act, before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA.

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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The landlord’s evidence shows that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord has claimed the cost of deep cleaning, based on a quotation for $5,500.00. This work has not been undertaken. Based on the limited evidence provided, $2,500.00 is considered reasonable compensation for the landlord’s cleaning and rubbish removal costs. This is because there is limited evidence for the extent of cleaning claimed, and the report following meth testing has not been provided. General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord seeks compensation for tenant damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of 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 age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has provided photographic evidence of the damage from the alleged cultivation of cannabis, and quotations from a builder and electrician for repairs. There is no photographic evidence showing the condition of the premises before the tenancy began. As noted earlier, the repair work has not been undertaken.
Based on the available evidence, it is accepted that the following damage was caused during the tenancy, and this damage was most likely intentional: • Floor: there were holes in the floorboards, in each room. The repair cost is $650.00. • Ceiling: There was extensive damage, as shown in the photographs. According to the builder’s quote, 60% of the ceiling was damaged. The cost of repairs is $4,215.00. • Doors: The doors and doorstops had been removed and needed to be reinstated with new hinges, locks, and doorstops. The cost is $500.00 for a total of five doors. • Electrical cabling and wiring: There was damage to wiring and cables, and the repair cost, based on the quotation from the electrician, is $2,300.00. • Ceiling lights: a total of 15 lights had to be replaced, at a cost of $1,350.00.
The above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage, so the above amounts are awarded. Other claims
The landlord seeks $5,500.00 for new carpet, based on the builder’s quote. While noting that the carpet was damaged, no evidence has been provided regarding the condition of the carpet before the tenancy began, or the age of the carpet. Furthermore, the quotation is from a builder, rather than a carpet retailer, and lacks the necessary details. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.
There are other items listed in the quotations, and because of the limited information provided by the landlord, they have not been established, to the required standard, and are dismissed. Exemplary damages
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by cultivating cannabis at the premises.
Section 40(2)(b) of the RTA prohibits the tenant from using the premises or permitting the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
In this case, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence for the Tribunal to be able to conclude that the premises was being used for an unlawful purpose. The landlord’s evidence is limited to confirmation that the matter has been reported to police, and photographs of the damage. It does not include other supporting information, such as a police report, details of the outcome of the police investigation, a report following testing, or any other independent report, such as from the landlord’s insurer.
Accordingly, I decline to award exemplary damages. Name suppression and filing fee
An application for suppression has been made by the landlord. The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details, in view of the landlord being substantially successful.
The filing fee has previously been awarded to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5164834 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5164834 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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