What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5242951?

The tribunal order states: Brooksfield Property Management Limited As Agent For Ethan Laby must take

How much money was awarded in case 5242951?

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 5242951?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5242951?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12227453-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5242951?

The tribunal order states: Brooksfield Property Management Limited As Agent For Ethan Laby must take

How much money was awarded in case 5242951?

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 5242951?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5242951?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12227453-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 9, 443 Cashel Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5242951 — Property damage

Order

Brooksfield Property Management Limited As Agent For Ethan Laby must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit after 18 th August 2025.
Alice Ngaraiti Campbell must pay Brooksfield Property Management Limited As Agent For Ethan Laby $4971.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Previous order application 5242951 dated 12/06/2025$1,087.14 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Repairs: Repair wardrobe door$225.40 Rubbish removal$324.88 Lock/key replacement$375.00 Garage door remote$204.25 Repairs: repainting and repairs$828.00 Carpet Cleaning$667.00 Carpet tear and stain repairs$200.00 Cleaning: Products and labour$626.49 Refixing roman blinds$106.38 Exemplary damages s40 (3A)(e)$150.00 Exemplary damages s40(3A)(d)$150.00 Total award$4,971.54 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4971.54

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, the tenant did not attend. The tenant did not attend the earlier hearing on 12 June 2025. The tenant has been served with the notice of hearing and so I am proceeding with the hearing in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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 tenant did not return the keys.
The garage door remote was missing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has provided the Tribunal with a pre let and an exit inspection reports and photos. The photos clearly show that the property was left in a dirty condition with rubbish and possession left throughout the property.
The landlord has provided the Tribunal with invoices to cover the cost of the disposal of rubbish, commercial cleaning and repair of the carpets, and full clean of the property.
The tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has provided an invoice for the cost of replacing the locks and keys. The tenant did not return the garage door remote at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has provided an invoice for the cost of replacing the garage door remote.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claims for the carpet repair and clean, house clean, disposal of rubbish, locksmith, and replacement garage door remote costs.
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 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: -Damage to walls in lounge and bedrooms, dents, holes, and scrapes. -Blinds removed. -Wardrobe door broken.
The landlord has provided the inspection report and photos to show the damage to the walls in the lounge and bedrooms and the invoices to repair the damage.
The tenant removed blinds in the property which the landlord needed to pay to have someone rehang. The landlord provided the invoice for the work required to rehang the blinds.
The wardrobe in the bedroom was broken and off the tracks. The landlord provided the invoice for the cost of the repair work.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the repair costs.
The amounts ordered are proved. Disposal of goods left at property:
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has been proactive in trying to communicate with the tenant to remove her possessions and agreed on a period for the tenant was to collect the goods, but the tenant failed to collect the goods within that time.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. The value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them. Therefore, the landlord may dispose of the goods. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord will hold onto the tenant’s possession until 18 th August 2025. That will be 90 days after the end of the tenancy. Tenancy Inferencing with other neighbours:
A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The landlord has been given reports from the neighbouring units of interference with their quiet enjoyment and peace. The written reports given to the Tribunal discuss frequent nights of loud music, large gatherings of people causing obstruction to the shared driveway, noise, dogs and intimidation. The reports were of numerous complaints to the property manager and the Councils noise control services. I find the tenant has 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 (“RTA”).
The neighbours were stressed and feed up with the constant noise and disruption to their lives as a result of the tenant’s poor inconsiderate behaviour. People should have the right to live in their homes without the constant harassment of large groups of noisy people, drinking in the complex, jumping through hedges, obstructing the driveways, and congregating in groups in the complex common areas.
I am awarding the landlord exemplary damages to reflect the harm caused by the tenant’s behaviour and the effect on the other neighbouring tenants. I am only awarding a small amount in exemplary damages because I am mindful of the compensation, I have also granted for the vacated costs. Exceeding the number of tenants
Brooksfield Property Management Limited As Agent For Ethan Laby 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 the maximum number of 2 people may live in the premises during the tenancy.
However, in the last few months of the tenancy the tenant had a friend staying at the house on court bail conditions. The tenant did not seek the permission of the landlord before moving her friend into the property. The tenant was aware that she was not permitted to have the extra resident in the property.
The tenant has breached her tenancy agreement by allowing the extra person to stay at the property without permission. The landlord said that prior to this extra person residing at the property the tenant had been excellent. Problems with the neighbours had started with the arrival of this person. 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 has been spoken to about the claim that another person was residing at the property but denied it. The landlord was able to confirm that the additional person was residing at the property by other sources.
I am awarding exemplary damages but again as a very modest amount due to the compensation claims awarded and the need to ensure they are covered before applying a penalty on the tenant for her breaches of the RTA and her tenancy agreement. Filing fee:
Because Brooksfield Property Management Limited As Agent For Ethan Laby has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5242951 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 9, 443 Cashel Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

Tenancy Tribunal case 5242951 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 9, 443 Cashel Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

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?

Property management

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?

Property management