What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5270619 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 5270619?

Cleaning: $514.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5175591 D…: $568.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Television: $724.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5270619?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5270619?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12343529-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5270619 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 5270619?

Cleaning: $514.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5175591 D…: $568.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Television: $724.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5270619?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5270619?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12343529-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5270619 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5270619 — net $1,973.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5175591 dated 27/03/2025	$568.43	Previous order application 5175591 dated 27/03/2025
Cleaning	$514.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$140.00	Lock/key replacement
Replace television	$724.50	Replace television
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,973.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,973.93

[Property Managers], Property Managers, appeared at the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not appear, and the Tribunal understands he is currently in custody. The Tribunal was satisfied that the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.

The tenancy commenced on 19 October 2023 with the fixed term expiring on 18 October 2024. Thereafter the tenancy became periodic.

On 5 March 2025, the landlord became aware the tenant had abandoned the premises after receiving an e-mail from the Police advising the tenant was in custody.

On 27 March 2025, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy and granted possession to the landlord. 1

On 26 May 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking: i. Cleaning cost totalling $514.17 ii. Lock change costs totalling $140.00 iii. Replacement and rehanging of a television totalling $724.50 iv. Repairs to the front door totalling $365.70 v. Exemplary damages for the tenant abandoning the property without reasonable excuse. vi. Exemplary damages for the tenant using or permitting the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. Relevant legal considerations

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.

That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: 1 Monarch Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Property Management as Agent for Maxwell Family Trust (Jennifer Maxwell) v Sam Tagaloa [2025] NZTT 5175591 ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Exemplary damages

The Tribunal must consider a claim for exemplary damages.

Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Act.

Section 109 of the Act relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.

The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act. Claim 1 - Cleaning

The landlord is claiming $514.15 for cleaning and rubbish removal. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(iii) of the Act.

The landlord has provided photographs of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. These photographs show the property to be in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and free of rubbish.

The landlord has provided photographs of the property at the end of the tenancy. These photographs were taken on 28 March 2023, the day after the Tenancy Tribunal terminated the tenancy for abandonment.

The end of tenancy photographs show the tenant’s clothing, footwear, grooming products, cutlery and crockery, furniture and bedding, food, and cleaning products were not removed at the end of the tenancy. Nor was the property clean and tidy.

The Tribunal can make a proper before and after comparison of the cleanliness of the property. Having heard from the landlord and reviewing the photographs, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. In these circumstances the amount claimed is reasonable and awarded. Claim 2 – Lock change

The landlord is seeking $140.00 to rekey the locks at the property after the tenant failed to return the keys at the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return to the landlord all keys, and security pass cards or other such devices. See section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the Act.

The tenancy was terminated for abandonment. The keys have not been returned. The amount claimed is ordered. Claim 3 – Replacement and rehanging of the television.

The landlord seeks $724.50 to replace and rehang the television they say was damaged by the tenant during the tenancy and provided an invoice for the amount claimed.

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 Act.

The landlord provided pre-tenancy photographs showing the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs show the television to be in good condition and fixed to the wall.

The end of tenancy photographs show that the television is no longer fixed to the wall and the screen has been cracked and broken away from the frame.

The Tribunal has been able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the television. Having heard from the landlord and reviewing all the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that damage to the television occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is awarded. Claim 4 – Repairs to the front door and door frame

The landlord seeks compensation for repairs to the front door after the Police found it damaged on 5 March 2025 following the execution of a search warrant. The landlord arranged for a contractor to undertake repairs to the door and door frame and provided and invoice totalling $365.70 for the work done.

The landlord states that the door and door frame were in good condition at

00pm on 4 March 2025 when they undertook a routine property inspection. The landlord provided pre-tenancy photographs which show the front door and door frame to be in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy.

The landlord provided an e-mail from the Police dated 5 March 2025, and an invoice detailing the scope of the work required to repair the door and door frame after it was kicked in causing a hole. The landlord submits that the tenant is responsible for the damage.

With any claim from a landlord for compensation for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage 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 49B, 66K(2)(a), and 66L of the Act.

Having considered the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the damage to the door and door frame. The door was damaged sometime between 3:00pm on 4 March 2025 when the landlord left the property and the morning of Wednesday 5 March 2025 when the Police executed a search warrant at the property. The Police e-mail states that the tenant was not present during their search of the property because he was in custody. On that basis the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the tenant has caused or allowed someone else to cause the damage. The claim is dismissed. Claim 5 - Abandoning the property without reasonable excuse

The tenancy was terminated for abandonment on 27 March 2025. 2 2 Ibid

A tenant commits an unlawful act if they abandon the premises when the rent is in arrears. Exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 61(5) and Schedule 1A of the 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. See section 109(3) of the Act.

The landlord seeks exemplary damages from the tenant for abandoning the property without reasonable excuse. The landlord argued that the tenant’s custodial status was not a reasonable excuse and was therefore intentional.

Having considered the evidence the Tribunal finds that the tenant abandoned the property after being held in custody. The presence of the tenant’s belongings in the property including food, clothing, footwear, furniture, and personal care items suggest the tenant intended to return. I therefore do not find that the tenant abandoned the property intentionally, it was abandoned after his right to freedom was revoked. The claim is dismissed. Claim 6 - Using or permitting the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose

[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully. The landlord said they received a warning from the Police that syringes had been located at the property during the execution of a search warrant. From this information they invited the Tribunal to infer that the syringes were being used for the consumption of illegal drugs. The landlord noted the absence of a sharps container or prescription medication which they say supports their contention the syringes were used for illegal drug consumption. The landlord further relies on the fact that Police executed a search warrant at the property as evidence of the tenant using the property for an unlawful purpose.

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) of the Act.

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 Act.

It is unlawful to possess or use illegal drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

Having heard from the landlord and considering all the evidence I do not find the tenant has committed an unlawful act. Being in possession of a syringe is not unlawful. There is no other evidence before the Tribunal to support the landlord’s contention that the tenant was using the property for the consumption of illegal drugs. The e-mail from Police, relied on by the landlord, does not state the tenant was using the property for the consumption of illegal drugs, nor does the email outline the reason why the property was searched, what the Police were searching for and what, if any, evidence was recovered. The claim is dismissed. Costs

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name Suppression

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case. In this case the landlord has been substantially successful and name suppression is ordered.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5270619 — net $1,973.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5175591 dated 27/03/2025	$568.43	Previous order application 5175591 dated 27/03/2025
Cleaning	$514.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$140.00	Lock/key replacement
Replace television	$724.50	Replace television
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,973.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,973.93