How much money was awarded in case 4498210?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,349.42 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,372.79 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4498210?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4498210?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9328091-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4498210?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,349.42 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,372.79 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4498210?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4498210?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9328091-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

33 Evans Road, Weymouth, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4498210 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4498210 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4498210 — net $6,842.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18/8/23 plus rent payable to 26/8/23	$8,349.42	Rent arrears to 18/8/23 plus rent payable to 26/8/23
Water rates	$1,372.79	Water rates
Repairs – repair holes, dog damage	$500.00	Repairs – repair holes, dog damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,842.65
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,842.65

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

By consent, the tenancy of [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] at 33 Evans Road, Weymouth, Auckland 2103 is terminated, and possession is granted to Investment & Development Holdings Limited, at 11:59pm on Saturday 26 August 2023.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 (3736930-002) to Investment & Development Holdings Limited immediately.

[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Investment & Development Holdings Limited $6,842.65 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below: Reas ons:

Both parties attended the hearing. Sera and [The tenant/s] represented the tenants and Don Wai represented the landlord.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, outstanding water rates and compensation for damage. He seeks refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

At the outset, the tenants said that they did not oppose termination. Despite their best efforts they have been unable to get on top of the rent arrears and want to avoid escalating the situation.

To allow them adequate time to pack up, clean and vacate the premises the tenancy will terminate at 11:59pm on Saturday 26 August 2023. Rent Arrears and Water

The landlord has now provided a full rent summary. As at 18 August 2023 (last Friday) the arrears were $7,246.56.

The tenants agree this amount is owing and it is ordered accordingly.

Because the tenancy will terminate on 26 August 2023, I have also made an order for rent payable for the period 19-26 August 2023, which is $1,102.86. That brings the total amount that will be owing up to the end of the tenancy to $8,349.42.

The amount ordered is proved.

The landlord also provided an updated water ledger which shows the outstanding water is $1,372.79. The tenants accept this is owing and it is ordered accordingly.

The amount ordered is proved.

The landlord also seeks compensation for damage he says was caused by the tenants.

Specifically, he says that a dog chewed areas and there are also holes in some of the walls.

To succeed in a claim for damage, 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 ss 40(2)(a), 40(4) and 41 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”).

The main difficulty the landlord has in this case is that there is limited evidence as to the state of the premises prior to the commencement of the tenancy. This means that there are already problems in establishing the first limb of the test, namely proving that the damage occurred during the tenancy.

After the last hearing, the landlord was able to produce an early inspection report and 18 low resolution photographs of various parts of the property. Although the photos are better than nothing, they are of limited value to the exercise I must conduct.

Those photographs were difficult to see but generally appear to show an older style property with a reasonable amount of wear and tear and a few areas of damage, for example there is a cupboard door missing in the kitchen and paint peeling off the kitchen ceiling. It does not seem to be an inspection prior to the start of the tenancy because the premises seems to be occupied. Ultimately it is not really possible to assess the overall standard of the property from those photographs.

The landlord has also provided photographs of the damage alleged. In particular, I can see that there are holes in at least one wall and damage to the lower part of another wall where a dog appears to have chewed on the wall. There are also areas where wallpaper or paint (unable to tell which) has peeled off and veneer is coming off some of the doors. The carpet also appears threadbare in some places. However, it is not clear when or how these things have occurred

In the absence of clear evidence showing the state of those areas prior to the tenancy I am not satisfied on balance that the landlord has established that the damage has been caused during the tenancy and is beyond fair wear and tear.

The only exceptions are the hole in the wall and the area where the dog has chewed. I am prepared to infer that the property was not rented with actual holes in the wall or chewing damage to the wall and it is clearly more than fair wear and tear. To that extent, I accept that the tenants are liable for this damage.

The landlord has provided a quote for repairs from Clearview Painting Limited. That quote is for $7,475.00 and include repair, plastering and painting in various areas throughout the premises including kitchen, staircase, bedroom, downstairs hallway, entire ceiling upstairs and other (undefined) areas.

Today the landlord said that he had asked Clearview to separate the quote into the “dog and wall damage” which he says is a tenant liability and the “ceiling work” which he accepts is his liability. He provided an email response from Clearview in response to this request, which states that the cost of “the tenant part” comes to $3,500.00 plus GST.

The landlord says this is what he is seeking today. He accepts the work has not yet been done, so no loss has been incurred, however he says that the work will be completed prior to the property being re-tenanted.

As noted above, I am only satisfied that the tenants are liable for the hole and the chewing damage. The landlord has not established that the entirety of the “wall damage” in the property is a tenant liability.

In determining the quantum of compensation to award for this damage, I must take 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. I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. I note this property was built in the 1960s and much of the property is in original condition.

Taking all this into account, I consider it appropriate for the tenants to pay a contribution towards the overall cost of repairs. I order the tenants to pay $500.00 towards repairs.

The amount ordered is proved.

Because Investment & Development Holdings Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. J R Smith 23 August 2023

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4498210 — net $6,842.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18/8/23 plus rent payable to 26/8/23	$8,349.42	Rent arrears to 18/8/23 plus rent payable to 26/8/23
Water rates	$1,372.79	Water rates
Repairs – repair holes, dog damage	$500.00	Repairs – repair holes, dog damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,842.65
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,842.65