What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4516083 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4516083?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,921.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains And Walls: $159.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $328.82 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4516083?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4516083?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9182493-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4516083 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4516083?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,921.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains And Walls: $159.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $328.82 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4516083?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4516083?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9182493-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4516083 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4516083 — net $2,276.76 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,921.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$328.82	6. In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the tenancy ended on 1 March 2023 as the Tenant has not provided any evidence to prove ther…
Repairs: Curtains and walls	$159.00	Repairs: Curtains and walls
Rubbish removal	$160.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$287.50	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,276.76
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,276.76

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Jaselyn Jeet, Mandeep Singh, Nikhil Gavind Naidu and Shaizana Fozmin must pay [The landlord/s] $2,276.76 immediately, being rent arrears to 1 March 2023.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing by teleconference. Miss Jeet was the only Tenant that attended by telephone. Mr Singh was called and answered but he was not available to attend. The other two Tenants answered the telephone calls.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates arrear, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This was a fixed term tenancy from 16 September 2022 to 16 September 2023. Miss Jeet did not live at the premises but was the partner of Mr Singh.

What date did the tenancy end?

The Landlord submitted the tenancy ended on 1 March 2023 when he received the keys for the property. He deposed that on 11 January 2023, the Tenant emailed them that they were vacating in two week’s time. The Landlord asked what date as they needed to find a new Tenant and advertise. The Landlord also informed them they were breaching the fixed term. The Tenants did not reply. The Landlord followed up by text message asking for a vacate date. On 20 January 2023 the Tenant replied saying they were leaving on 25 January 2023. The Landlord advised the Tenant they had to pay rent and advertisement fees for a new Tenant until the Landlord found a new Tenant.
The Tenant disputed this stating the tenancy ended on 18 January 2023. She dealt with the Landlord’s wife who agreed to terminating the tenancy and two week’s notice being provided from the Tenant. The Tenant advised she had all the correspondence via email which she would send through after the hearing however these were not received by the Tribunal.
In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the tenancy ended on 1 March 2023 as the Tenant has not provided any evidence to prove there was agreement to end prematurely.

How much is owed for rent and water rates arrears?

The tenancy ended on 1 March 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The Tenant disputed the water rates submitting the Landlord always sent these notices late to the Tenants. They needed more time to pay.
The Landlord submitted they received the water invoices by mail. Within the next few days they scanned and emailed to the Tenant. It was never sent a month later as the Tenant submitted. The invoices also gave dates for payment which were never immediate.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant was not disputing the amount for the water but the date that they received the invoices. I find the Tenant has not disproved that the water was owing and I accept the Landlord received the invoice and sent it onto the tenant for payment within a reasonable timeframe.
The amount awarded is proved.

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. Surfaces required wiping down. The floors needed a vacuum and mop. Photographs were provided of the full bins the Tenant failed to empty and a drawer, tyre, television, painting equipment and empty food packets left outside. The grass was also overgrown and required mowing. An invoice was provided for the gardening and cleaning.
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 the walls and curtains and kitchen tiles: a) The Landlord submitted there was dents on the middle bedroom wall which someone attempted to paint over with a different coloured paint. Paint also ended up on the curtain. The Landlord fixed and painted the wall himself. Photographs were provided of the wall damage. An invoice was provided from Bunnings for the replacement curtains. The ingoing inspection report indicated the wall and curtains were in reasonable condition. The Tenant did not dispute this as she did not live there. She recalls there were no dents in the walls when the Tenant moved in and her partner having two friends move in. One occupied the middle room. In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the walls were damaged as substantiated from the photographs, ingoing inspection report and Tenant’s admission she never saw dents at the start of the tenancy. The amounts ordered are proved. b) The Landlord claimed to repair some kitchen tiles which appeared cracked. Photographs were provided of the cracks and an invoice from the Builder who repaired it. The invoice stated “4 tiles came out because it was not stick properly previously”. The ingoing report indicated there were no issues with the tiles at the start of the tenancy. The Tenant did not dispute the damage. In considering the evidence, I consider this damage may not have been caused by the Tenant because of the invoice stating the tiles were not installed properly. For this reason, I decline the claim for the repair of the tiles.
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.
The Landlord withdrew their claim for exemplary damages during the hearing.
[The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee and name suppression is granted.
As the Tenants have not been successful, name suppression is not granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4516083 — net $2,276.76 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,921.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$328.82	6. In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the tenancy ended on 1 March 2023 as the Tenant has not provided any evidence to prove ther…
Repairs: Curtains and walls	$159.00	Repairs: Curtains and walls
Rubbish removal	$160.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$287.50	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,276.76
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,276.76

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Jaselyn Jeet, Mandeep Singh, Nikhil Gavind Naidu and Shaizana Fozmin must pay [The landlord/s] $2,276.76 immediately, being rent arrears to 1 March 2023.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing by teleconference. Miss Jeet was the only Tenant that attended by telephone. Mr Singh was called and answered but he was not available to attend. The other two Tenants answered the telephone calls.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates arrear, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This was a fixed term tenancy from 16 September 2022 to 16 September 2023. Miss Jeet did not live at the premises but was the partner of Mr Singh.

What date did the tenancy end?

The Landlord submitted the tenancy ended on 1 March 2023 when he received the keys for the property. He deposed that on 11 January 2023, the Tenant emailed them that they were vacating in two week’s time. The Landlord asked what date as they needed to find a new Tenant and advertise. The Landlord also informed them they were breaching the fixed term. The Tenants did not reply. The Landlord followed up by text message asking for a vacate date. On 20 January 2023 the Tenant replied saying they were leaving on 25 January 2023. The Landlord advised the Tenant they had to pay rent and advertisement fees for a new Tenant until the Landlord found a new Tenant.
The Tenant disputed this stating the tenancy ended on 18 January 2023. She dealt with the Landlord’s wife who agreed to terminating the tenancy and two week’s notice being provided from the Tenant. The Tenant advised she had all the correspondence via email which she would send through after the hearing however these were not received by the Tribunal.
In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the tenancy ended on 1 March 2023 as the Tenant has not provided any evidence to prove there was agreement to end prematurely.

How much is owed for rent and water rates arrears?

The tenancy ended on 1 March 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The Tenant disputed the water rates submitting the Landlord always sent these notices late to the Tenants. They needed more time to pay.
The Landlord submitted they received the water invoices by mail. Within the next few days they scanned and emailed to the Tenant. It was never sent a month later as the Tenant submitted. The invoices also gave dates for payment which were never immediate.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant was not disputing the amount for the water but the date that they received the invoices. I find the Tenant has not disproved that the water was owing and I accept the Landlord received the invoice and sent it onto the tenant for payment within a reasonable timeframe.
The amount awarded is proved.

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. Surfaces required wiping down. The floors needed a vacuum and mop. Photographs were provided of the full bins the Tenant failed to empty and a drawer, tyre, television, painting equipment and empty food packets left outside. The grass was also overgrown and required mowing. An invoice was provided for the gardening and cleaning.
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 the walls and curtains and kitchen tiles: a) The Landlord submitted there was dents on the middle bedroom wall which someone attempted to paint over with a different coloured paint. Paint also ended up on the curtain. The Landlord fixed and painted the wall himself. Photographs were provided of the wall damage. An invoice was provided from Bunnings for the replacement curtains. The ingoing inspection report indicated the wall and curtains were in reasonable condition. The Tenant did not dispute this as she did not live there. She recalls there were no dents in the walls when the Tenant moved in and her partner having two friends move in. One occupied the middle room. In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the walls were damaged as substantiated from the photographs, ingoing inspection report and Tenant’s admission she never saw dents at the start of the tenancy. The amounts ordered are proved. b) The Landlord claimed to repair some kitchen tiles which appeared cracked. Photographs were provided of the cracks and an invoice from the Builder who repaired it. The invoice stated “4 tiles came out because it was not stick properly previously”. The ingoing report indicated there were no issues with the tiles at the start of the tenancy. The Tenant did not dispute the damage. In considering the evidence, I consider this damage may not have been caused by the Tenant because of the invoice stating the tiles were not installed properly. For this reason, I decline the claim for the repair of the tiles.
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.
The Landlord withdrew their claim for exemplary damages during the hearing.
[The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee and name suppression is granted.
As the Tenants have not been successful, name suppression is not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4516083 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4516083 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What date did the tenancy end?

How much is owed for rent and water rates arrears?

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What date did the tenancy end?

How much is owed for rent and water rates arrears?

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

Frequently asked questions