What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5379013 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 5379013?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; GST: $2,415.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Ceiling: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Insulation: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Walls in three rooms, repaint wall,…: $5,500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Carpet in bedro…: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Hallway carpet,…: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379013?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379013?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13287363-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5379013 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 5379013?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; GST: $2,415.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Ceiling: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Insulation: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Walls in three rooms, repaint wall,…: $5,500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Carpet in bedro…: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Hallway carpet,…: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379013?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379013?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13287363-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5379013 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5379013 — net $18,543.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Ceiling	$1,500.00	Repairs: Ceiling
Repairs: Walls in three rooms, repaint wall, ceiling, doors, windows and garage	$5,500.00	Repairs: Walls in three rooms, repaint wall, ceiling, doors, windows and garage
Replace furnishings: Carpet in bedrooms	$3,000.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet in bedrooms
Replace furnishings: Hallway carpet, flooring and skirting	$3,000.00	Replace furnishings: Hallway carpet, flooring and skirting
Lock/key replacement	$600.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Insulation	$1,800.00	Repairs: Insulation
Rubbish removal	$700.00	Rubbish removal
GST	$2,415.00	GST
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$18,543.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$18,543.00

The landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not appear.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The kitchen, oven, range hood was dirty. There was rubbish in the house and in the garden that required removing. The rubbish included furniture. Photographs were provided of the rubbish and parts of the house that required cleaning.

The Landlord submitted they had installed new carpet in the house before the Tenant moved in. At the end of the tenancy, the carpet in the bedrooms and hallway were faded and there was a strong stench. Most of it was damaged by liquid.

The tenant did not return the keys for the front door lock and garage. The Tenant did not return the garage remote.

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 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.

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: roof insulation, ceiling and roof holes in the three bedrooms, multiple nail holes in the walls and attempted patching repairs on the walls. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Exemplary damages

[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by attempting to grow marijuana. The Landlord was told this was likely what had happened from the insurance assessors.

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.

It is unlawful to grow cannabis in accordance with the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

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 tenant had made multiple holes in the walls and ceilings of the property and caused water damage to the carpet. There was a police report provided by the Landlord however this only confirmed a report was made but not that there was marijuana cultivation at the property.

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.

As a result of the Tenants actions, the Landlord suffered financially when having to repair and renovate the property caused by the Tenants damages. The Landlord lost rental income, suffered immense stress and felt unsafe when they found a knife on the floor next to the Tenants bed. They were afraid to take action.

In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove the Tenant grew cannabis in the property. There were no photographs of the holes or cannabis and the Police report only referred to ‘wilful damage’. There was also nothing to confirm the insurance assessors speculation that there was cannabis growth at the property.

The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

As the Landlord has been substantially successful, name suppression is granted to the Landlord and the Tenant shall pay the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5379013 — net $18,543.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Ceiling	$1,500.00	Repairs: Ceiling
Repairs: Walls in three rooms, repaint wall, ceiling, doors, windows and garage	$5,500.00	Repairs: Walls in three rooms, repaint wall, ceiling, doors, windows and garage
Replace furnishings: Carpet in bedrooms	$3,000.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet in bedrooms
Replace furnishings: Hallway carpet, flooring and skirting	$3,000.00	Replace furnishings: Hallway carpet, flooring and skirting
Lock/key replacement	$600.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Insulation	$1,800.00	Repairs: Insulation
Rubbish removal	$700.00	Rubbish removal
GST	$2,415.00	GST
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$18,543.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$18,543.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details.
Quoc Phu Nguyen must pay [The landlord/s] $18,543.00 immediately, being rent arrears to 19 May 2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not appear.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The kitchen, oven, range hood was dirty. There was rubbish in the house and in the garden that required removing. The rubbish included furniture. Photographs were provided of the rubbish and parts of the house that required cleaning.
The Landlord submitted they had installed new carpet in the house before the Tenant moved in. At the end of the tenancy, the carpet in the bedrooms and hallway were faded and there was a strong stench. Most of it was damaged by liquid.
The tenant did not return the keys for the front door lock and garage. The Tenant did not return the garage remote.
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 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.
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: roof insulation, ceiling and roof holes in the three bedrooms, multiple nail holes in the walls and attempted patching repairs on the walls. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Exemplary damages
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by attempting to grow marijuana. The Landlord was told this was likely what had happened from the insurance assessors.
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.
It is unlawful to grow cannabis in accordance with the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
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 tenant had made multiple holes in the walls and ceilings of the property and caused water damage to the carpet. There was a police report provided by the Landlord however this only confirmed a report was made but not that there was marijuana cultivation at the property.
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.
As a result of the Tenants actions, the Landlord suffered financially when having to repair and renovate the property caused by the Tenants damages. The Landlord lost rental income, suffered immense stress and felt unsafe when they found a knife on the floor next to the Tenants bed. They were afraid to take action.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove the Tenant grew cannabis in the property. There were no photographs of the holes or cannabis and the Police report only referred to ‘wilful damage’. There was also nothing to confirm the insurance assessors speculation that there was cannabis growth at the property.
The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.
As the Landlord has been substantially successful, name suppression is granted to the Landlord and the Tenant shall pay the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379013 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379013 — 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

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