What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4595529?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4595529?

Cleaning: $397.95 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,414.29 awarded to landlord; To Bench: $391.00 awarded to landlord; To Drainage In Shower: $853.17 awarded to landlord; To Electrical Cables: $198.95 awarded to landlord; Replace Garage Door: $2,707.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4595529?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4595529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9387120-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4595529?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4595529?

Cleaning: $397.95 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,414.29 awarded to landlord; To Bench: $391.00 awarded to landlord; To Drainage In Shower: $853.17 awarded to landlord; To Electrical Cables: $198.95 awarded to landlord; Replace Garage Door: $2,707.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4595529?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4595529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9387120-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 Vercoe Crescent, Morrinsville, Morrinsville 3300 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4595529 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

21 Vercoe Crescent, Morrinsville, Morrinsville 3300 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4595529 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4595529 — net $8,623.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10/4/2023	$3,414.29	Rent arrears to 10/4/2023
Replace Garage Door	$2,707.70	Replace Garage Door
Repairs to fence	$1,000.00	Repairs to fence
Cleaning: exterior and driveway	$300.00	Cleaning: exterior and driveway
Cleaning general including oven and stove	$397.95	Cleaning general including oven and stove
Repairs: to electrical cables	$198.95	Repairs: to electrical cables
Repairs: to bench	$391.00	Repairs: to bench
Repairs: to drainage in shower	$853.17	Repairs: to drainage in shower
Exemplary damages – unlawful use of premises	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages – unlawful use of premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,623.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,623.50

Claims and awards for application 4595529 — net $8,623.50 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 10/4/2023

Amount: $3,414.29
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 10/4/2023

Replace Garage Door

Amount: $2,707.70
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace Garage Door

Repairs to fence

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs to fence

Cleaning: exterior and driveway

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: exterior and driveway

Cleaning general including oven and stove

Amount: $397.95
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning general including oven and stove

Dismissed claims

Smoke Alarms — While there was an elevated fire risk, fortunately there was no evidence the tenants had taken smoke alarms down or interfered with fire ladders or any other m…

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Melanie Petina Bullas and Michael William Dickson must pay Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Kam1 Property Management Limited And Annie Muggeridge $8,623.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 10 April 2023. 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. The exterior of the house and driveway required cleaning to remove extensive staining probably caused by oil.
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 intentional damage was caused during the tenancy: the garage door had holes drilled into it that could not be repaired, the electrical wiring was spliced and the drainage in the shower deliberately blocked. The kitchen bench was carelessly damaged, probably by a hot pot and the exterior fence removed, probably to remove a children’s playhouse. 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 considered betterment and depreciation when assessing compensation for the repairs to the fence. It is likely the amount requested included compensation to restain the entire fence and not just the portion the tenant damaged. This amount is reduced accordingly. 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 fence at the start of the tenancy and it’s likely useful lifespan. I have not depreciated the replacement cost of the damage door. A coloursteel door does not deteriorate over time, the door was only a few years old and would have lasted many more years had it not been damaged. I do not consider that the full replacement cost is unreasonable and note there is no request to replace the mechanical system or any other part of the door.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Kam1 Property Management Limited And Annie Muggeridge claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by manufacturing drugs (probably marijuana) in the garage roof space.
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.
It is unlawful to manufacture marijuana.
The evidence establishes that the power was “spliced to the garage, it appears likely this was to avoid Police detection of the additional electricity charges that would have been incurred as a result of growing the marijuana, the holes in the garage door were also likely to have been put there as a security measure. The landlord also found leaves that look like marijuana in the ceiling .All of this evidence is sufficient for me to find that it is likely I find they have committed an unlawful act. It is relevant that the tenant was aware of the claims but chose not to appear to contest any part of the landlord claims.
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.
I have awarded exemplary damages towards the higher end of the maximum amount permitted. The actions were clearly intentional. In addition, they were dangerous both to the property and the occupants. The electrician’s report confirms that the splicing of the electrical system posed a very high safety risk as there was a greatly increased chance of both fire or electrocution.
The Tribunal must send a strong message to offending tenants that this type of behaviour with its inherent risks to the landlord’s property (and the occupants of the property as well which in this case appear to include children) will not be tolerated.
As noted at the hearing the claim for exemplary damages for interfering with smoke alarms and means of escape in the event of a fire is dismissed. While there was an elevated fire risk, fortunately there was no evidence the tenants had taken smoke alarms down or interfered with fire ladders or any other means of escape from the property. The elevated fire risk is a significant factor in awarding close to the maximum in exemplary damages under the unlawful activity provision.
Because Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Kam1 Property Management Limited And Annie Muggeridge has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4595529 — net $8,623.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10/4/2023	$3,414.29	Rent arrears to 10/4/2023
Replace Garage Door	$2,707.70	Replace Garage Door
Repairs to fence	$1,000.00	Repairs to fence
Cleaning: exterior and driveway	$300.00	Cleaning: exterior and driveway
Cleaning general including oven and stove	$397.95	Cleaning general including oven and stove
Repairs: to electrical cables	$198.95	Repairs: to electrical cables
Repairs: to bench	$391.00	Repairs: to bench
Repairs: to drainage in shower	$853.17	Repairs: to drainage in shower
Exemplary damages – unlawful use of premises	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages – unlawful use of premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,623.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,623.50

Claims and awards for application 4595529 — net $8,623.50 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 10/4/2023

Amount: $3,414.29
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 10/4/2023

Replace Garage Door

Amount: $2,707.70
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace Garage Door

Repairs to fence

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs to fence

Cleaning: exterior and driveway

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: exterior and driveway

Cleaning general including oven and stove

Amount: $397.95
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning general including oven and stove

Dismissed claims

Smoke Alarms — While there was an elevated fire risk, fortunately there was no evidence the tenants had taken smoke alarms down or interfered with fire ladders or any other m…

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Melanie Petina Bullas and Michael William Dickson must pay Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Kam1 Property Management Limited And Annie Muggeridge $8,623.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 10 April 2023. 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. The exterior of the house and driveway required cleaning to remove extensive staining probably caused by oil.
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 intentional damage was caused during the tenancy: the garage door had holes drilled into it that could not be repaired, the electrical wiring was spliced and the drainage in the shower deliberately blocked. The kitchen bench was carelessly damaged, probably by a hot pot and the exterior fence removed, probably to remove a children’s playhouse. 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 considered betterment and depreciation when assessing compensation for the repairs to the fence. It is likely the amount requested included compensation to restain the entire fence and not just the portion the tenant damaged. This amount is reduced accordingly. 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 fence at the start of the tenancy and it’s likely useful lifespan. I have not depreciated the replacement cost of the damage door. A coloursteel door does not deteriorate over time, the door was only a few years old and would have lasted many more years had it not been damaged. I do not consider that the full replacement cost is unreasonable and note there is no request to replace the mechanical system or any other part of the door.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Kam1 Property Management Limited And Annie Muggeridge claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by manufacturing drugs (probably marijuana) in the garage roof space.
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.
It is unlawful to manufacture marijuana.
The evidence establishes that the power was “spliced to the garage, it appears likely this was to avoid Police detection of the additional electricity charges that would have been incurred as a result of growing the marijuana, the holes in the garage door were also likely to have been put there as a security measure. The landlord also found leaves that look like marijuana in the ceiling .All of this evidence is sufficient for me to find that it is likely I find they have committed an unlawful act. It is relevant that the tenant was aware of the claims but chose not to appear to contest any part of the landlord claims.
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.
I have awarded exemplary damages towards the higher end of the maximum amount permitted. The actions were clearly intentional. In addition, they were dangerous both to the property and the occupants. The electrician’s report confirms that the splicing of the electrical system posed a very high safety risk as there was a greatly increased chance of both fire or electrocution.
The Tribunal must send a strong message to offending tenants that this type of behaviour with its inherent risks to the landlord’s property (and the occupants of the property as well which in this case appear to include children) will not be tolerated.
As noted at the hearing the claim for exemplary damages for interfering with smoke alarms and means of escape in the event of a fire is dismissed. While there was an elevated fire risk, fortunately there was no evidence the tenants had taken smoke alarms down or interfered with fire ladders or any other means of escape from the property. The elevated fire risk is a significant factor in awarding close to the maximum in exemplary damages under the unlawful activity provision.
Because Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Kam1 Property Management Limited And Annie Muggeridge has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4595529 — Rent arrears at 21 Vercoe Crescent, Morrinsville, Morrinsville 3300

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4595529 — Rent arrears at 21 Vercoe Crescent, Morrinsville, Morrinsville 3300

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions