What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5111808?

The tribunal order states: David Kulwinder Kumar must pay Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5111808?

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 5111808?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5111808?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11608135-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5111808?

The tribunal order states: David Kulwinder Kumar must pay Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5111808?

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 5111808?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5111808?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11608135-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 2, 103C Aurora Terrace, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5111808 — Property damage

Order

David Kulwinder Kumar must pay Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Gavin Metcalfe $5090.16 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The property manager and company director attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear.
The landlord has applied for compensation, damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The premises are a room-by-room rental with a shared common area containing a mini fridge and small kitchen items. The bathroom was shared by room two and three. At the time of the tenancy the tenant had rented room two and room three was locked and empty.
The tenancy was terminated by Tenancy Tribunal order on 15 November 2024. Rent arrears were awarded to that date and the bond refunded.

How much is owed for rent ?

The tenancy ended on15 November 2024, but the tenant did not leave the premises until 18 November. The landlord sought the extra 3 days rent and this is awarded as claimed. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. Photographs were provided of rubbish, food and broken items in the premises and dumped outside. The premises had not been cleaned and there were alot of needles which presented and extra hazard for the cleaners.
The tenant did not return the keys.
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 damage was caused during the tenancy: a) A window was broken. b) Three doors were damaged. Photographs were provided of a destroyed door lock and holes in the doors and a damaged door jam. The door to room three was broken and used by the tenant, but this was not part of their tenancy. c) Multiple walls in two rooms and the shared access area had large holes in them. Photographs of large wall holes and collections of smaller holes were provided. The property manager said that they had appeared after the last inspection. d) The stairwell had damage to the wall. A copy of a Police report was provided about an altercation that occurred when the property manager was there. It noted the hole in the stairway.
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. Maximum Number Of Tenants
Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Gavin Metcalfe claims that the number of people living at the premises exceeds the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00. See section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement specifies that one person is the maximum number of people that may live in the room during the tenancy.
The property manager met a girl at the premises and had had received complaints from other tenants about a girl being at the premises all the time. The property manager had an altercation with her when she was told to leave. This was noted in a Police report date 8 October 2025,a copy was provided.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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.
The tenant knew that they were not allowed to have more than one person living in the room. I find that based on the evidence there was another person living there. This affected the other tenant’s enjoyment of the premises and was a breach of the terms of the tenancy agreement. It is important that tenants comply with the terms of their tenancy agreement and comply with the requirements of the RTA.
I find it just to award damages of $340.00. Interference with the smoke alarms.
Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Gavin Metcalfe claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant removed the smoke alarm outside the door to the room he was renting. A photograph of it from the end of tenancy inspection showed it lying on the floor I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
The removal of a smoke alarm can endanger those that live and visit the premises. It is important that all safety requirements are complied with, and I find it just to award $800.00 for this breach. Unlawful purpose
Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Gavin Metcalfe claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using prohibited drugs.
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.
The end of tenancy photographs shows a lot of needles, saline solution and a small amount of grass like substance left behind by the tenant. The substance was not tested.
The landlord provided a Police case summary report of an incident alleging drugs, this was dated 1July 2024.The tenancy ended 18 November 2025.
I do not find that there was enough evidence provided to establish this claim and it is dismissed.
Because Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Gavin Metcalfe has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5111808 — Property damage at Room 2, 103C Aurora Terrace, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216

Tenancy Tribunal case 5111808 — Property damage at Room 2, 103C Aurora Terrace, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216

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