What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4405629?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4405629?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,780.59 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $971.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,765.25 awarded to landlord; Security Guard: $694.03 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $469.48 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4405629?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4405629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9227539-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4405629?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4405629?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,780.59 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $971.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,765.25 awarded to landlord; Security Guard: $694.03 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $469.48 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4405629?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4405629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9227539-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 606, 18 Beach Road, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4405629 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4405629 — net $4,361.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$2,780.59	Repairs
Water rates	$469.48	Water rates
Lock/key replacement	$200.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$1,765.25	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Repairs: garage door	$971.75	Repairs: garage door
security guard	$694.03	security guard
Net award	$4,361.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,361.54

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Shannon Lennox must pay Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers as Agents for Seong Sik Choi $4,361.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Repairs$2,780.59 Water rates$469.48 Lock/key replacement$200.00 Rubbish removal$1,765.25 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Repairs: garage door$971.75 security guard$694.03 Total award$6,901.54 Minus Bond$2,540.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,361.54
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,540.00 (5431777-005) to Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers as Agents for Seong Sik Choi immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, the tenant did not attend.
This application has had a long history. The original application was heard before Adjudicator Yi on 18 October 2022. That application was for termination of the tenancy, reimbursement of filing fee, refund of bond, compensation for damage to a garage door and the cost of a security officer to guard the insecure property. The tenant did not attend that hearing.
Adjudicator Yi issued an order in favour of the landlord.
On 20 December 2022, the tenant filed a rehearing application on the basis that she was unaware of the hearing.
A rehearing hearing was heard before Adjudicator Yi on 21 February 2023 and a rehearing was allowed.
On 14 April 2023 I heard the matter afresh. The tenant turned up one and a half hours late, after the hearing had been completed and the landlord had left the courthouse.
The tenant claimed that she wanted to defend the application and as she was homeless, she was unable to attend the hearing on time.
I adjourned the matter part heard to allow the tenant to present her side of the matter. I advised that if she fails to turn up again on time that I will proceed in her absence.
The tenant failed to turn up to the hearing. The landlord attended and the hearing was concluded.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage done to the apartment, water bills, rubbish removal, security officer costs and garage door repairs, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. How much is owed for water rates]?
The tenancy ended on 6 December 2022. The landlord provided water rates invoices for $469.48 which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven her claim for water bills.

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. Rubbish
The landlord provided the Tribunal with invoices from Junk to Go dated 21 December 2022 for $1765.25 for rubbish removal. The landlord also provided photographs of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The tenant had left a considerable about of rubbish, clothing, and items in the property. The landlord was required to remove the rubbish.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for rubbish removal costs. Lock/keys replacement
The tenant did not return the keys to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided the Tribunal with an invoice for lock and key replacement from Lock-Man Limited dated 6 December 2022 for $200.00
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the lock and key replacement.

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: multiple holes in the walls, bedroom wardrobe doors needed to be replaced, front door was broken, and the garage door was damaged. Garage door
The landlord has provided evidence of the carpark entrance roller door being damaged by a tenant’s guest riding into it with a motorbike.
The tenant is seen waiting in the carpark and greeting the motorbike rider in the CCTV stills provided.
The landlord was charged by the Body Corporate for the repair costs for the roller door and the costs for the security guard while the roller gate was being repaired.
The landlord did not have insurance to cover the costs.
I am satisfied that the damage was caused by the tenant’s guest who was at the premise with the tenant’s permission.
I order the tenant to pay the landlord $697.03 for the reimbursement of the security guard costs and $971.75 for the roller door. Holes in the walls/wardrobe doors
The landlord has provided photos and an exit inspection report showing damage to the walls, wardrobe doors, front door, and bathroom door handle in the apartment. The landlord has provided a detailed invoice from Optimus Construction dated 12 February 2023 for $2780.59 for labour and materials to repair the damage done to the apartment.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claims for damage and repairs to the property.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers as Agents for Seong Sik Choi has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The bond ids to be refunded to the landlord to offset the debt owed to the landlord by the tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4405629 — net $4,361.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$2,780.59	Repairs
Water rates	$469.48	Water rates
Lock/key replacement	$200.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$1,765.25	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Repairs: garage door	$971.75	Repairs: garage door
security guard	$694.03	security guard
Net award	$4,361.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,361.54

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Shannon Lennox must pay Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers as Agents for Seong Sik Choi $4,361.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Repairs$2,780.59 Water rates$469.48 Lock/key replacement$200.00 Rubbish removal$1,765.25 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Repairs: garage door$971.75 security guard$694.03 Total award$6,901.54 Minus Bond$2,540.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,361.54
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,540.00 (5431777-005) to Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers as Agents for Seong Sik Choi immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, the tenant did not attend.
This application has had a long history. The original application was heard before Adjudicator Yi on 18 October 2022. That application was for termination of the tenancy, reimbursement of filing fee, refund of bond, compensation for damage to a garage door and the cost of a security officer to guard the insecure property. The tenant did not attend that hearing.
Adjudicator Yi issued an order in favour of the landlord.
On 20 December 2022, the tenant filed a rehearing application on the basis that she was unaware of the hearing.
A rehearing hearing was heard before Adjudicator Yi on 21 February 2023 and a rehearing was allowed.
On 14 April 2023 I heard the matter afresh. The tenant turned up one and a half hours late, after the hearing had been completed and the landlord had left the courthouse.
The tenant claimed that she wanted to defend the application and as she was homeless, she was unable to attend the hearing on time.
I adjourned the matter part heard to allow the tenant to present her side of the matter. I advised that if she fails to turn up again on time that I will proceed in her absence.
The tenant failed to turn up to the hearing. The landlord attended and the hearing was concluded.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage done to the apartment, water bills, rubbish removal, security officer costs and garage door repairs, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. How much is owed for water rates]?
The tenancy ended on 6 December 2022. The landlord provided water rates invoices for $469.48 which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven her claim for water bills.

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. Rubbish
The landlord provided the Tribunal with invoices from Junk to Go dated 21 December 2022 for $1765.25 for rubbish removal. The landlord also provided photographs of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The tenant had left a considerable about of rubbish, clothing, and items in the property. The landlord was required to remove the rubbish.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for rubbish removal costs. Lock/keys replacement
The tenant did not return the keys to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided the Tribunal with an invoice for lock and key replacement from Lock-Man Limited dated 6 December 2022 for $200.00
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the lock and key replacement.

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: multiple holes in the walls, bedroom wardrobe doors needed to be replaced, front door was broken, and the garage door was damaged. Garage door
The landlord has provided evidence of the carpark entrance roller door being damaged by a tenant’s guest riding into it with a motorbike.
The tenant is seen waiting in the carpark and greeting the motorbike rider in the CCTV stills provided.
The landlord was charged by the Body Corporate for the repair costs for the roller door and the costs for the security guard while the roller gate was being repaired.
The landlord did not have insurance to cover the costs.
I am satisfied that the damage was caused by the tenant’s guest who was at the premise with the tenant’s permission.
I order the tenant to pay the landlord $697.03 for the reimbursement of the security guard costs and $971.75 for the roller door. Holes in the walls/wardrobe doors
The landlord has provided photos and an exit inspection report showing damage to the walls, wardrobe doors, front door, and bathroom door handle in the apartment. The landlord has provided a detailed invoice from Optimus Construction dated 12 February 2023 for $2780.59 for labour and materials to repair the damage done to the apartment.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claims for damage and repairs to the property.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers as Agents for Seong Sik Choi has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The bond ids to be refunded to the landlord to offset the debt owed to the landlord by the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4405629 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 606, 18 Beach Road, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4405629 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 606, 18 Beach Road, 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