What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5274640?

The tribunal order states: Monique Withers and Cory Gordon must pay Susan Mary Macky $2,373.97

How much money was awarded in case 5274640?

Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $3,429.93 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5274640?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5274640?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12308940-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5274640?

The tribunal order states: Monique Withers and Cory Gordon must pay Susan Mary Macky $2,373.97

How much money was awarded in case 5274640?

Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $3,429.93 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5274640?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5274640?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12308940-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 5, 25A Beach Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5274640 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5274640 — net $2,373.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace carpet	$3,429.93	Replace carpet
Exemplary damages	$400.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$2,373.97
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,373.97

Order

Monique Withers and Cory Gordon must pay Susan Mary Macky $2,373.97 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,455.96 (BN-00014638) to Susan Mary Macky immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 6 August 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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) RTA. The landlord is insured. The landlord’s policy of insurance carries an excess of $2,000.00 on each and every claim.
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) 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 carpet was damaged during the tenancy. The carpet had been newly installed one month prior to the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord provided photographic evidence of stains in five rooms within the premises. The landlord had counted 144 separate stains.
The tenants accepted that the stains had been caused by both coffee and the tenants’ use of a soldering iron. The level of the insurance excess applicable to each claim in each room damaged, is such that the landlord is effectively not insured. The landlord provided an invoice for replacement of the carpet of $3,429.93. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Given the age of the carpet, I have not made any deduction for depreciation or betterment.
Susan Mary Macky claims the tenants have used the premises unlawfully, by using methamphetamine, a prohibited substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The premises were tested for the presence of methamphetamine at the end of the tenancy. The test results showed a very small level of methamphetamine residue. The level was such that the premises did not require decontamination.
No baseline methamphetamine test had been obtained by the landlord at the commencement of the tenancy. In the normal course of events, this would have resulted in the landlord’s application being dismissed.
The landlord provided a copy of an invoice for the installation of extractor fans in both the bathroom and kitchen. The extractor fans had been installed after the commencement of this tenancy. Both extractor fans tested positive for methamphetamine residue. In those circumstances, I find that it is more likely than not that the tenants or their guests have used the premises for an unlawful purpose. I find that the tenants have 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The use of methamphetamine is an intentional act. It is in the interests of this landlord and landlords generally to ensure that tenants do not carry out unlawful acts on tenanted premises. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, including the relatively low levels of contamination, I consider that an award at the lower end of the scale of $400.00 to be appropriate.
The tenants applied for name suppression. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenants’ application for name suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5274640 — net $2,373.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace carpet	$3,429.93	Replace carpet
Exemplary damages	$400.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$2,373.97
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,373.97

Order

Monique Withers and Cory Gordon must pay Susan Mary Macky $2,373.97 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,455.96 (BN-00014638) to Susan Mary Macky immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 6 August 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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) RTA. The landlord is insured. The landlord’s policy of insurance carries an excess of $2,000.00 on each and every claim.
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) 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 carpet was damaged during the tenancy. The carpet had been newly installed one month prior to the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord provided photographic evidence of stains in five rooms within the premises. The landlord had counted 144 separate stains.
The tenants accepted that the stains had been caused by both coffee and the tenants’ use of a soldering iron. The level of the insurance excess applicable to each claim in each room damaged, is such that the landlord is effectively not insured. The landlord provided an invoice for replacement of the carpet of $3,429.93. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Given the age of the carpet, I have not made any deduction for depreciation or betterment.
Susan Mary Macky claims the tenants have used the premises unlawfully, by using methamphetamine, a prohibited substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The premises were tested for the presence of methamphetamine at the end of the tenancy. The test results showed a very small level of methamphetamine residue. The level was such that the premises did not require decontamination.
No baseline methamphetamine test had been obtained by the landlord at the commencement of the tenancy. In the normal course of events, this would have resulted in the landlord’s application being dismissed.
The landlord provided a copy of an invoice for the installation of extractor fans in both the bathroom and kitchen. The extractor fans had been installed after the commencement of this tenancy. Both extractor fans tested positive for methamphetamine residue. In those circumstances, I find that it is more likely than not that the tenants or their guests have used the premises for an unlawful purpose. I find that the tenants have 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The use of methamphetamine is an intentional act. It is in the interests of this landlord and landlords generally to ensure that tenants do not carry out unlawful acts on tenanted premises. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, including the relatively low levels of contamination, I consider that an award at the lower end of the scale of $400.00 to be appropriate.
The tenants applied for name suppression. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenants’ application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5274640 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Flat 5, 25A Beach Road, Te Atatu Peninsula,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5274640 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Flat 5, 25A Beach Road, Te Atatu Peninsula,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions