What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4661716?

The tribunal order states: Lucan Taina Te Papa Elliott and Hemi Teao Ngawiri Symons must pay Slpm

How much money was awarded in case 4661716?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,140.00 awarded to landlord; Rent During Occupation: $741.43 awarded to landlord; Excesses For 6 Rooms: $6,000.00 awarded to landlord; Unblock Drain: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $32.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4661716?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4661716?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9961425-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4661716?

The tribunal order states: Lucan Taina Te Papa Elliott and Hemi Teao Ngawiri Symons must pay Slpm

How much money was awarded in case 4661716?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,140.00 awarded to landlord; Rent During Occupation: $741.43 awarded to landlord; Excesses For 6 Rooms: $6,000.00 awarded to landlord; Unblock Drain: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $32.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4661716?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4661716?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9961425-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 16 Kent Street, Waiuku, Waiuku 2123 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4661716 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4661716 — net $7,756.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent during occupation to 26 November 2023	$741.43	Rent during occupation to 26 November 2023
Rubbish removal: Junk Pro	$1,150.00	Rubbish removal: Junk Pro
Window repairs	$1,140.00	Window repairs
Smoke alarm	$32.30	Smoke alarm
Repairs: Unblock drain	$322.00	Repairs: Unblock drain
Repairs: Excesses for 6 rooms	$6,000.00	Repairs: Excesses for 6 rooms
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,756.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,756.17

Order

Lucan Taina Te Papa Elliott and Hemi Teao Ngawiri Symons must pay Slpm Limited As Agent For Ravi Jha $7,756.17 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,650.00 (6417782-011) to Slpm Limited As Agent For Ravi Jha immediately.

Reasons

Mr Dawson and Mr Jha attended the hearing.
The tenants were rung on six phone numbers that had been given to the landlord at various times over the tenancy (five of which were included in the tenancy application) none of those calls were answered by the tenants.
On the 26 October 2023 I granted termination of the tenancy and granted immediate possession of the premises back to the landlord. The tenant applied for a rehearing, but I declined the rehearing on the 27 October 2023.
The landlord says that despite the tenants being aware of the tenancy orders and the outcome of the rehearing application that they remained in the property until the 26 November 2023.
On the 30 October the landlord sent in tradespersons to secure the property and start to remediate damage. The tenant was at the property at that time but when asked to leave did so. The property was secured. However, later that evening the tenant smashed a window to gain access to the property, and the landlord gave evidence that the tenant continued to stay in the property after that time. The landlord sought assistance from the Police but was told that this was civil matter.
When a tenancy is terminated, and a tenant remains in possession after termination they are liable for the rent (see s 60 RTA). I am satisfied that the tenants continued to occupy the property until the 26 November when the landlord finally was able to secure the property, even then the tradespersons and neighbours reported that the tenants were coming to the property.
The tenants’ rent was paid for a further two weeks after the 26 October and I have deducted that off the amount of rent owed. $1581.43 rent due to 26 November less rent paid $840.00.
When the Tribunal terminates a tenancy then the tenants no longer have a lawful right to occupy the premises. If the landlord secures a premises and the tenant breaks in this is a criminal matter for the Police. It is in effect no different that the tenant smashing a window at any house in the street and then taking up residence there. The fact that a tenant was a previous lawful tenant does not give them any right to break into a house and take occupancy.
The landlord sought rent from 26 November 2023 until today’s hearing because the property had to be remediated and whilst doing so the landlord has lost rent. The landlord has an obligation to mitigate its loss. The landlord says that the tradespersons were scared of coming to the property but there is no evidence of that submitted by the landlord and indeed some of the trades work was done at the end of November – such as all of the rubbish being removed and the glass work repaired. I decline to grant any rent after the 26 November 2023.

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 landlord had to replace light bulbs and smoke alarm batteries.
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.
I am satisfied that considerable intentional damage was caused to every room of the house. This included multiple broken windows, graffiti on walls, broken rangehood and heat pump, all doors removed and door jambs broken, multiple holes in the walls, damage to paint work.
The landlord had to have all the glass work repaired at a cost of $1440.00 and the remaining damage was covered by insurance, but the landlord had to pay an excess of $6000.00. I have therefore awarded those amounts to the landlord.
The landlord provided me with a copy of the inspection reports taken throughout the tenancy. The ingoing inspection reports in June 2021 show a property in excellent condition, by the time the landlord was able to inspect the property again in January 2022, damage has already occurred such as holes in the walls and graffiti on a wall, this damage grows each time the landlord inspected despite the landlord issuing a 14-day notices to remediate after each inspection. In July 2022 the tenants had removed smoke alarm, removed a door, holes in the wall and graffiti, in October 2022 there were cracked windows holes in the wall a further broken door. In July 2023 the house was in an atrocious state with graffiti on the walls, multiple broken windows, broken doors throughout the house, broken heat pump and rangehood.
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. Filing fee
The landlord has been substantially successful in its claims and therefore the filing fee is awarded to the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4661716 — net $7,756.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent during occupation to 26 November 2023	$741.43	Rent during occupation to 26 November 2023
Rubbish removal: Junk Pro	$1,150.00	Rubbish removal: Junk Pro
Window repairs	$1,140.00	Window repairs
Smoke alarm	$32.30	Smoke alarm
Repairs: Unblock drain	$322.00	Repairs: Unblock drain
Repairs: Excesses for 6 rooms	$6,000.00	Repairs: Excesses for 6 rooms
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,756.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,756.17

Order

Lucan Taina Te Papa Elliott and Hemi Teao Ngawiri Symons must pay Slpm Limited As Agent For Ravi Jha $7,756.17 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,650.00 (6417782-011) to Slpm Limited As Agent For Ravi Jha immediately.

Reasons

Mr Dawson and Mr Jha attended the hearing.
The tenants were rung on six phone numbers that had been given to the landlord at various times over the tenancy (five of which were included in the tenancy application) none of those calls were answered by the tenants.
On the 26 October 2023 I granted termination of the tenancy and granted immediate possession of the premises back to the landlord. The tenant applied for a rehearing, but I declined the rehearing on the 27 October 2023.
The landlord says that despite the tenants being aware of the tenancy orders and the outcome of the rehearing application that they remained in the property until the 26 November 2023.
On the 30 October the landlord sent in tradespersons to secure the property and start to remediate damage. The tenant was at the property at that time but when asked to leave did so. The property was secured. However, later that evening the tenant smashed a window to gain access to the property, and the landlord gave evidence that the tenant continued to stay in the property after that time. The landlord sought assistance from the Police but was told that this was civil matter.
When a tenancy is terminated, and a tenant remains in possession after termination they are liable for the rent (see s 60 RTA). I am satisfied that the tenants continued to occupy the property until the 26 November when the landlord finally was able to secure the property, even then the tradespersons and neighbours reported that the tenants were coming to the property.
The tenants’ rent was paid for a further two weeks after the 26 October and I have deducted that off the amount of rent owed. $1581.43 rent due to 26 November less rent paid $840.00.
When the Tribunal terminates a tenancy then the tenants no longer have a lawful right to occupy the premises. If the landlord secures a premises and the tenant breaks in this is a criminal matter for the Police. It is in effect no different that the tenant smashing a window at any house in the street and then taking up residence there. The fact that a tenant was a previous lawful tenant does not give them any right to break into a house and take occupancy.
The landlord sought rent from 26 November 2023 until today’s hearing because the property had to be remediated and whilst doing so the landlord has lost rent. The landlord has an obligation to mitigate its loss. The landlord says that the tradespersons were scared of coming to the property but there is no evidence of that submitted by the landlord and indeed some of the trades work was done at the end of November – such as all of the rubbish being removed and the glass work repaired. I decline to grant any rent after the 26 November 2023.

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 landlord had to replace light bulbs and smoke alarm batteries.
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.
I am satisfied that considerable intentional damage was caused to every room of the house. This included multiple broken windows, graffiti on walls, broken rangehood and heat pump, all doors removed and door jambs broken, multiple holes in the walls, damage to paint work.
The landlord had to have all the glass work repaired at a cost of $1440.00 and the remaining damage was covered by insurance, but the landlord had to pay an excess of $6000.00. I have therefore awarded those amounts to the landlord.
The landlord provided me with a copy of the inspection reports taken throughout the tenancy. The ingoing inspection reports in June 2021 show a property in excellent condition, by the time the landlord was able to inspect the property again in January 2022, damage has already occurred such as holes in the walls and graffiti on a wall, this damage grows each time the landlord inspected despite the landlord issuing a 14-day notices to remediate after each inspection. In July 2022 the tenants had removed smoke alarm, removed a door, holes in the wall and graffiti, in October 2022 there were cracked windows holes in the wall a further broken door. In July 2023 the house was in an atrocious state with graffiti on the walls, multiple broken windows, broken doors throughout the house, broken heat pump and rangehood.
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. Filing fee
The landlord has been substantially successful in its claims and therefore the filing fee is awarded to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4661716 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 3, 16 Kent Street, Waiuku, Waiuku 2123

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4661716 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 3, 16 Kent Street, Waiuku, Waiuku 2123

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions