What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5379142 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Justin Lewis & Milton Purver As Trustees For Titiroa

How much money was awarded in case 5379142?

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 5379142?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379142?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13127814-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5379142 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Justin Lewis & Milton Purver As Trustees For Titiroa

How much money was awarded in case 5379142?

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 5379142?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379142?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13127814-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

72 Glen Road, The Glen, Dunedin 9011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5379142 — Property damage

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Justin Lewis & Milton Purver As Trustees For Titiroa Trust $9,502.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The tenant failed to attend the hearing.
This case was previously before me on the 24 November 2025. At that time the tenancy was terminated and the case adjourned for the application for the clean-up costs.
The history of the case was also outlined in that decision.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 24 November 2025. The landlord provided rent records 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. 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. There was a significant clean-up that was required. This included the substances that appeared to have been deliberately spread under the house on the moisture barrier. It also included the six trailer loads of rubbish to the refuse centre, and cleaning up of dog excrement and subfloor clean-up.
The amounts ordered are proven.

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:
As stated in the previous hearing there was a fire that had been deliberately lite outside of the property that actually caused significant damage. Whilst the insurance would not cover intentional damage, this excluded fire, therefore the extensive repair costs from the fire are not claimed, simply the excess of $650.00 and I award that amount accordingly.
There was also damage to the down pipes that had all been removed from the property and needed to be replaced. This is clearly intentional damage.
The wall linings had been removed by the tenant during the tenancy and there had been agreement that the tenant would repaint the reinstated wall linings and this was never done. The claim is for the painting of the wall lining. I accept the amount is proven.
There were a number of claims under general repairs, these included, a broken window casement, holes in walls, window latches, cleaning up of items left on the roof, replacement of the broken toilet seat and cistern, replacement of the broken wheelie bin, replacement of windows, scrubbing off plaster smeared on brickwork, repair of kitchen doors and cupboards and removal of a pallet and makeshift fencing.
All of the damage claimed is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Having considered all of the evidence I find that the amounts ordered are proven.
The landlord claims loss of rent for four weeks. Given the extensive intentional damage caused and the work required to remedy before it could be re let I award the claim as sought.
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.
Because Justin Lewis & Milton Purver As Trustees For Titiroa Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Justin Lewis & Milton Purver As Trustees For Titiroa Trust $9,502.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The tenant failed to attend the hearing.
This case was previously before me on the 24 November 2025. At that time the tenancy was terminated and the case adjourned for the application for the clean-up costs.
The history of the case was also outlined in that decision.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 24 November 2025. The landlord provided rent records 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. 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. There was a significant clean-up that was required. This included the substances that appeared to have been deliberately spread under the house on the moisture barrier. It also included the six trailer loads of rubbish to the refuse centre, and cleaning up of dog excrement and subfloor clean-up.
The amounts ordered are proven.

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:
As stated in the previous hearing there was a fire that had been deliberately lite outside of the property that actually caused significant damage. Whilst the insurance would not cover intentional damage, this excluded fire, therefore the extensive repair costs from the fire are not claimed, simply the excess of $650.00 and I award that amount accordingly.
There was also damage to the down pipes that had all been removed from the property and needed to be replaced. This is clearly intentional damage.
The wall linings had been removed by the tenant during the tenancy and there had been agreement that the tenant would repaint the reinstated wall linings and this was never done. The claim is for the painting of the wall lining. I accept the amount is proven.
There were a number of claims under general repairs, these included, a broken window casement, holes in walls, window latches, cleaning up of items left on the roof, replacement of the broken toilet seat and cistern, replacement of the broken wheelie bin, replacement of windows, scrubbing off plaster smeared on brickwork, repair of kitchen doors and cupboards and removal of a pallet and makeshift fencing.
All of the damage claimed is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Having considered all of the evidence I find that the amounts ordered are proven.
The landlord claims loss of rent for four weeks. Given the extensive intentional damage caused and the work required to remedy before it could be re let I award the claim as sought.
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.
Because Justin Lewis & Milton Purver As Trustees For Titiroa Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379142 — Property damage at 72 Glen Road, The Glen, Dunedin 9011

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379142 — Property damage at 72 Glen Road, The Glen, Dunedin 9011

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management