What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5398812?

The tribunal order states: Thomas Reihana must pay Tuscancity Property Management Limited $959.50

How much money was awarded in case 5398812?

Cleaning: $483.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $448.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5398812?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5398812?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13233960-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5398812?

The tribunal order states: Thomas Reihana must pay Tuscancity Property Management Limited $959.50

How much money was awarded in case 5398812?

Cleaning: $483.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $448.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5398812?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5398812?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13233960-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 4B, 147 Hobson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5398812 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5398812 — net $959.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$483.00	Cleaning
Repairs: damaged building entrance door	$448.50	Repairs: damaged building entrance door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$959.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$959.50

Order

Thomas Reihana must pay Tuscancity Property Management Limited $959.50 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by telephone represented by Mr Tajali.
The tenant also initially attended the hearing by telephone. However, a few minutes into the hearing, the call discontinued. The Tribunal telephoned the tenant on his telephone number but it diverted to voicemail. It appears that the tenant did not wish to be present and the hearing continued without him.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, 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 (RTA).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy as evidenced by the pre-tenancy and post tenancy photos taken by the landlord and produced at the hearing.
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.
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 landlord provided evidence including a report from the security company monitoring the building and CCTV footage. The evidence shows that a person arrived at the building and kicked in the glass door at the entrance to gain entry to the building. When inside the building he then met with the tenant in the lift area. The tenant handed something to this visitor, after which the tenant headed into the building lift and the visitor exited the building.
The landlord submits that the visitor was clearly known to the tenant as the tenant handed him some item when they met inside the building. It follows that the tenant must have invited the visitor to the building and/or given the building address to the visitor in order for them to meet. The visitor clearly damaged the entrance door intentionally.
The Body Corporate running the building sent an invoice to the owners of the premises in which the tenant resides for the cost of repairing the entrance door. The landlord seeks to recover this sum from the tenant.
The landlord says that the tenant acknowledged that the visitor was known to him.
Section 41 RTA provides: (1) The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. (2) Where any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) intentionally or carelessly damages the premises while the tenant is in the premises, it shall be presumed that the tenant permitted that person to be in the premises unless the tenant proves that he or she took all reasonable steps to prevent that person from entering the premises or (as the case may require) to eject that person from the premises. [emphasis added]
The tenants liability under section 41 specifically relates to the premises.
The following definitions in s2 RTA are relevant when interpreting s41 RTA: premises means: (a) any part of any premises; and (b) any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and (c) and any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land facilities, in relation to a tenancy agreement ...... includes all facilities provided by the landlord for the non-exclusive use and enjoyment of the tenant, otherwise than as part of the premises that are the subject of the agreement, such as the following: (a) any land or buildings intended for use for storage space or for the parking of motor vehicles:.............. (d) lifts and stairways:
I am satisfied that the visitor was at the building in which the premises are located at the invitation of the tenant. Therefore, it follows that the tenant gave the visitor permission to come to the building. The visitor then caused intentional damage. However, the issues to determine are: a. whether the visitor coming to the building can be considered permission by the tenant to be at the premises; and b. whether damaging the common area/front entrance can be considered damage to the premises.
The premises cannot be accessed without arriving through the front entrance. Therefore, I consider the only sensible interpretation is that the front entrance must be considered part of the premises or an appurtenance to the premises. Appurtenance is not defined in the RTA but a dictionary definition is “something that, while technically detachable, is so fundamental to something else that it should be regarded as a part of the whole.” On that basis, I find the front entrance to the building is part of the premises and/or an appurtenance.
Based on s41(1)and (2) RTA, it is presumed that the tenant permitted the visitor to come to the building in which the premises are located and the tenant is responsible for his visitor’s actions. Therefore, I find that the tenant is liable for the costs of repairing the intentional damage caused by his visitor.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the application they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5398812 — net $959.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$483.00	Cleaning
Repairs: damaged building entrance door	$448.50	Repairs: damaged building entrance door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$959.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$959.50

Order

Thomas Reihana must pay Tuscancity Property Management Limited $959.50 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by telephone represented by Mr Tajali.
The tenant also initially attended the hearing by telephone. However, a few minutes into the hearing, the call discontinued. The Tribunal telephoned the tenant on his telephone number but it diverted to voicemail. It appears that the tenant did not wish to be present and the hearing continued without him.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, 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 (RTA).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy as evidenced by the pre-tenancy and post tenancy photos taken by the landlord and produced at the hearing.
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.
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 landlord provided evidence including a report from the security company monitoring the building and CCTV footage. The evidence shows that a person arrived at the building and kicked in the glass door at the entrance to gain entry to the building. When inside the building he then met with the tenant in the lift area. The tenant handed something to this visitor, after which the tenant headed into the building lift and the visitor exited the building.
The landlord submits that the visitor was clearly known to the tenant as the tenant handed him some item when they met inside the building. It follows that the tenant must have invited the visitor to the building and/or given the building address to the visitor in order for them to meet. The visitor clearly damaged the entrance door intentionally.
The Body Corporate running the building sent an invoice to the owners of the premises in which the tenant resides for the cost of repairing the entrance door. The landlord seeks to recover this sum from the tenant.
The landlord says that the tenant acknowledged that the visitor was known to him.
Section 41 RTA provides: (1) The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. (2) Where any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) intentionally or carelessly damages the premises while the tenant is in the premises, it shall be presumed that the tenant permitted that person to be in the premises unless the tenant proves that he or she took all reasonable steps to prevent that person from entering the premises or (as the case may require) to eject that person from the premises. [emphasis added]
The tenants liability under section 41 specifically relates to the premises.
The following definitions in s2 RTA are relevant when interpreting s41 RTA: premises means: (a) any part of any premises; and (b) any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and (c) and any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land facilities, in relation to a tenancy agreement ...... includes all facilities provided by the landlord for the non-exclusive use and enjoyment of the tenant, otherwise than as part of the premises that are the subject of the agreement, such as the following: (a) any land or buildings intended for use for storage space or for the parking of motor vehicles:.............. (d) lifts and stairways:
I am satisfied that the visitor was at the building in which the premises are located at the invitation of the tenant. Therefore, it follows that the tenant gave the visitor permission to come to the building. The visitor then caused intentional damage. However, the issues to determine are: a. whether the visitor coming to the building can be considered permission by the tenant to be at the premises; and b. whether damaging the common area/front entrance can be considered damage to the premises.
The premises cannot be accessed without arriving through the front entrance. Therefore, I consider the only sensible interpretation is that the front entrance must be considered part of the premises or an appurtenance to the premises. Appurtenance is not defined in the RTA but a dictionary definition is “something that, while technically detachable, is so fundamental to something else that it should be regarded as a part of the whole.” On that basis, I find the front entrance to the building is part of the premises and/or an appurtenance.
Based on s41(1)and (2) RTA, it is presumed that the tenant permitted the visitor to come to the building in which the premises are located and the tenant is responsible for his visitor’s actions. Therefore, I find that the tenant is liable for the costs of repairing the intentional damage caused by his visitor.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the application they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee

Tenancy Tribunal case 5398812 — Cleanliness at Room 4B, 147 Hobson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5398812 — Cleanliness at Room 4B, 147 Hobson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

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