What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4669669?

The tribunal order states: Blaine Albert Henry Kingi must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4669669?

Cleaning: $474.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $422.86 awarded to tenant; Replace Chattels: $1,304.55 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4669669?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4669669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10372896-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4669669?

The tribunal order states: Blaine Albert Henry Kingi must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4669669?

Cleaning: $474.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $422.86 awarded to tenant; Replace Chattels: $1,304.55 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4669669?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4669669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10372896-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room D, Unit 11, 11 Ingram Street, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4669669 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4669669 — net $2,897.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$474.95		Cleaning
Repairs	$1,500.75		Repairs
Replace chattels	$1,304.55		Replace chattels
Exemplary damages	$1,500.00		Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$422.86	Rent credit
Total award	$4,800.69	$422.86
Net award	$2,897.83
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,897.83

Order

Blaine Albert Henry Kingi must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Bentley Studios Ltd $2,897.83 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,480.00 (6451450-001) to Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Bentley Studios Ltd immediately.

Reasons

The landlord’s representatives attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. He has been sent notice of the hearing by email, so I continued in his absence.
This tenancy ended on 20 August 2023 pursuant to previous order 4616590.
The landlord has now applied for refund of the bond, compensation for costs incurred and for exemplary damages alleging the tenant stole two televisions in the premises. Rent, cleaning and compensation for damage
The rent is in credit by $422.86.
The landlord’s photographs taken at the outgoing inspection show that the premises were left tidy but had not been cleaned. I award the modest cleaning invoice.
After comparing the ingoing and outgoing inspection photos, I am satisfied that the below damage occurred during this tenancy:- a. A large hole (kicked) through the bathroom door, b. About five patched areas on other walls that had to be sanded and painted, c. Several deep, circular dents in walls that have broken the surface of the gib, d. Gouges along the top of the handrail and balustrade up the stairs (possibly made by a screwdriver or end of some other blunt object), and e. The panel wall heater was partially pulled out of its mountings.
All the damage is more than wear and tear and most probably intentional. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission and are liable for the full cost of repairing intentional damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
I have reduced the award below the full amount of the invoice for repair of the damage as, in my view, the claim is not reasonable for the work done.
The handyperson contractor charged $750.00+GST to replace, fit and paint a hollow-core door, $725.00+GST to fill and paint the handrail and balustrade, and a further $1,275.00+GST to patch, sand and paint the dents and patched spots. This equates to 36 hours of work at $75.00 per hour. My assessment is that this work should reasonably have taken about half of that time. The invoice does not specify an hourly rate or show the cost of materials. I award a total of $1,500.75 (broken down as discussed with the representatives). Theft of two televisions
Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Bentley Studios Ltd claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by stealing the television in the tenant’s personal room and also the television in the common area shared by three other rooms.
Theft is dishonestly taking any property with intent to deprive the owner permanently of that property; section 219 Crimes Act 1961.
The landlords produced photographs taken from security camera footage showing a person they say is the tenant carrying a large rectangular object with a cable hanging from the back of it, through the carpark attached to the tenancy premises. The footage was taken on the end date of the tenancy.
The tenant said in an email to the landlord that he lent the TV from his room to a friend and does not know about the lounge TV.
This is improbable. The video footage is from after midnight on the end date of the tenancy and the landlord says the TV is large so is most likely the lounge TV.
I am satisfied that this tenant has taken at least one of the televisions from these premises with the intent to deprive the owner permanently of that property. This is theft.
I award compensation for the replacement cost of the two televisions together with installation. This is a total of $1,304.55. I have not depreciated the value as the TV’s were new at the start of this tenancy – 16 months earlier.
The landlord also seeks exemplary damages for the theft. Exemplary damages are like a fine and are intended to deter or punish.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 specifically prohibits a tenant from using tenancy premises, or permitting them 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.
Theft is clearly intentional so exemplary damages may be awarded.
I now consider the factors set out in section 109(3) RTA:- a. Intent: the intent must be to either sell or keep the TV’s for his own use. I note that the landlord says that the tenant was convicted on 26 June 2023 of stealing the television from a room adjacent to his room and that this earlier theft was the basis of the previous decision 4616590 to terminate this tenancy. b. Effect of the unlawful act: the landlord suffers loss and incurs cost and inconvenience, society and insurers also suffer loss, and the other tenants in flat 11 suffer the loss of a communal asset (the TV in the lounge). They also may suffer anxiety that a person they share a space with cannot be trusted. c. Interests of the landlord: clearly, that chattels are not stolen. d. Public interest: that tenants understand that if they steal chattels, they may be liable for the loss of the item and be fined. Theft from a rental property is a breach of trust of not only the landlord but, in this case, also of the other occupants of the flat.
It is just to award exemplary damages and I set this at $1,500.00 which is at the higher end of the scale because the tenant has repeated the unlawful behaviour and it affects others in his flat. Filing fee, bond, suppression
I award the filing fee. The landlord does not seek suppression.
The bond is refunded to the landlord in full.
The balance is payable by the tenant and may be enforced by the District Court if he does not pay the debt.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4669669 — net $2,897.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$474.95		Cleaning
Repairs	$1,500.75		Repairs
Replace chattels	$1,304.55		Replace chattels
Exemplary damages	$1,500.00		Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$422.86	Rent credit
Total award	$4,800.69	$422.86
Net award	$2,897.83
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,897.83

Order

Blaine Albert Henry Kingi must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Bentley Studios Ltd $2,897.83 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,480.00 (6451450-001) to Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Bentley Studios Ltd immediately.

Reasons

The landlord’s representatives attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. He has been sent notice of the hearing by email, so I continued in his absence.
This tenancy ended on 20 August 2023 pursuant to previous order 4616590.
The landlord has now applied for refund of the bond, compensation for costs incurred and for exemplary damages alleging the tenant stole two televisions in the premises. Rent, cleaning and compensation for damage
The rent is in credit by $422.86.
The landlord’s photographs taken at the outgoing inspection show that the premises were left tidy but had not been cleaned. I award the modest cleaning invoice.
After comparing the ingoing and outgoing inspection photos, I am satisfied that the below damage occurred during this tenancy:- a. A large hole (kicked) through the bathroom door, b. About five patched areas on other walls that had to be sanded and painted, c. Several deep, circular dents in walls that have broken the surface of the gib, d. Gouges along the top of the handrail and balustrade up the stairs (possibly made by a screwdriver or end of some other blunt object), and e. The panel wall heater was partially pulled out of its mountings.
All the damage is more than wear and tear and most probably intentional. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission and are liable for the full cost of repairing intentional damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
I have reduced the award below the full amount of the invoice for repair of the damage as, in my view, the claim is not reasonable for the work done.
The handyperson contractor charged $750.00+GST to replace, fit and paint a hollow-core door, $725.00+GST to fill and paint the handrail and balustrade, and a further $1,275.00+GST to patch, sand and paint the dents and patched spots. This equates to 36 hours of work at $75.00 per hour. My assessment is that this work should reasonably have taken about half of that time. The invoice does not specify an hourly rate or show the cost of materials. I award a total of $1,500.75 (broken down as discussed with the representatives). Theft of two televisions
Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Bentley Studios Ltd claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by stealing the television in the tenant’s personal room and also the television in the common area shared by three other rooms.
Theft is dishonestly taking any property with intent to deprive the owner permanently of that property; section 219 Crimes Act 1961.
The landlords produced photographs taken from security camera footage showing a person they say is the tenant carrying a large rectangular object with a cable hanging from the back of it, through the carpark attached to the tenancy premises. The footage was taken on the end date of the tenancy.
The tenant said in an email to the landlord that he lent the TV from his room to a friend and does not know about the lounge TV.
This is improbable. The video footage is from after midnight on the end date of the tenancy and the landlord says the TV is large so is most likely the lounge TV.
I am satisfied that this tenant has taken at least one of the televisions from these premises with the intent to deprive the owner permanently of that property. This is theft.
I award compensation for the replacement cost of the two televisions together with installation. This is a total of $1,304.55. I have not depreciated the value as the TV’s were new at the start of this tenancy – 16 months earlier.
The landlord also seeks exemplary damages for the theft. Exemplary damages are like a fine and are intended to deter or punish.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 specifically prohibits a tenant from using tenancy premises, or permitting them 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.
Theft is clearly intentional so exemplary damages may be awarded.
I now consider the factors set out in section 109(3) RTA:- a. Intent: the intent must be to either sell or keep the TV’s for his own use. I note that the landlord says that the tenant was convicted on 26 June 2023 of stealing the television from a room adjacent to his room and that this earlier theft was the basis of the previous decision 4616590 to terminate this tenancy. b. Effect of the unlawful act: the landlord suffers loss and incurs cost and inconvenience, society and insurers also suffer loss, and the other tenants in flat 11 suffer the loss of a communal asset (the TV in the lounge). They also may suffer anxiety that a person they share a space with cannot be trusted. c. Interests of the landlord: clearly, that chattels are not stolen. d. Public interest: that tenants understand that if they steal chattels, they may be liable for the loss of the item and be fined. Theft from a rental property is a breach of trust of not only the landlord but, in this case, also of the other occupants of the flat.
It is just to award exemplary damages and I set this at $1,500.00 which is at the higher end of the scale because the tenant has repeated the unlawful behaviour and it affects others in his flat. Filing fee, bond, suppression
I award the filing fee. The landlord does not seek suppression.
The bond is refunded to the landlord in full.
The balance is payable by the tenant and may be enforced by the District Court if he does not pay the debt.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4669669 — Property damage at Room D, Unit 11, 11 Ingram Street, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4669669 — Property damage at Room D, Unit 11, 11 Ingram Street, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions