What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5312879 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5312879?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312879?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312879?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12577899-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5312879 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5312879?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312879?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312879?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12577899-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5312879 — Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Fraser James Moncrieff Pope must pay [The landlord/s] $11,177.98 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 3 June 2025 under application 5251059.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 3 June 2025 by order of the Tribunal due to the substantial damaged caused to the premises.
The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant says he was in prison and unable to do anything.
Regardless, the tenant’s obligations remain under the tenancy agreement and the RTA.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove a significant amount of rubbish.
The landlord had to change the locks and secure the premises as nearly all windows had been smashed.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: curtains, clothesline, shower curtain, smoke alarm, council bins.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: extensive damage throughout the premises including smashed kitchen cupboards, sink faucet, holes in walls, graffiti, smashed windows and doors, and broken front path.
The tenant agrees he is responsible for the front path and clothesline, but says that he was in and out of prison when the other damages occurred.
I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I find that this damage falls squarely within the intentional category due to the extent and multiplicity. The tenant was unable to provide any evidence to support his claims that other unknown person(s) are responsible for the damage.
I do not find sufficient evidence that the tenant is responsible for damage to the front fence. Both parties agree the damage was caused by a third party, but the tenant denies that third party was on the premises with his permission. While the damage was only to one section and the tenant removed the rest of the fence, the entirety of the fence would likely need to be replaced in any event. This part of the claim is dismissed.
The landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the carpet throughout was damaged beyond cleaning or repair. The photos provided by the landlord at the start of the tenancy show that he provided some cut-offs to put over the existing carpet therefore I am not persuaded the carpet had any residual value. This part of the claim is dismissed.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fees
The filing fee for the previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with this claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord is entitled to name suppression as requested on their application form.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5312879 — Property damage

Tenancy Tribunal case 5312879 — Property damage

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?