How much money was awarded in case 4543753?

Cleaning: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Door, Cupboards, Screw Holes: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $600.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4543753?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4543753?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9585229-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4543753?

Cleaning: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Door, Cupboards, Screw Holes: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $600.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4543753?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4543753?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9585229-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 Rathlin Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4543753 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4543753?

The tribunal order states: This Order corrects and replaces the Order of the same NZTT number dated 03

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4543753 — net $2,721.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$500.00	Window repairs
Repairs: Door, cupboards, screw holes	$650.00	Repairs: Door, cupboards, screw holes
Cleaning	$750.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$600.88	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,721.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,721.32

This Order corrects and replaces the Order of the same NZTT number dated 03 August 2023.

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

Shonimay Dominique Jacinta Rodelle Anderson and Joseph Rupapera must pay Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers Acting Agent For Vaibhav & Priyanka Gahlout Singh $2,721.32 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

This was a rehearing following an application made by the landlord and granted on the papers on 15 September 2023.

The landlord attended the rehearing, the respondent did not.

The rehearing was to address a substantial wrong that occurred in the course of the two previous hearings, the first on 02 February 2023, and the second on 03 August 2023.

On 02 February 2023, the landlord applied for termination of the tenancy.

The Tribunal ordered termination of the tenancy and also ordered that the bond be released to the tenant. The landlord did not notice this second Order. The Bond Centre duly released the bond to the tenants.

When the landlord made a second application to the Tenancy Tribunal for damages, neither the landlord nor the Tribunal were aware that the bond had already been released to the tenant. The Tribunal ordered amongst other things, that the bond be released to the landlord, and this amount was deducted from the total payable to the landlord.

As there was no longer a bond for this tenancy at the Bond Centre, the landlord was unable to recover this amount for damages.

At the rehearing, it was established that a substantial wrong had occurred.

As the error was not an error of the Bond Centre, the Bond Centre is not empowered to reimburse the landlord.

The remedy is to adjust the award to the landlord by the amount of the bond. Other than that, no adjustments in quantum have been made.

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. 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.

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 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: a. Broken large window.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

I am satisfied that the damage has been caused carelessly. No information was provided to prove the damage was caused intentionally. For this reason I make an award for the standard amount of an insurance excess to replace the window. I do not accept the landlord’s submission that because the tenant was breaching the tenancy agreement by keeping a dog on the premises, the insurance company can avoid paying out on this claim: the tenancy breach and the claim are not in any way connected.

There was a lack of information supporting the claims for high amounts for cleaning, lawns rubbish removal and the repairs. Further information was requested but had not been received in a timely manner. I have reduced some of the awards to what I consider to be reasonable amounts given in keeping with the information provided and given that the tenants are required only to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4543753 — net $2,721.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$500.00	Window repairs
Repairs: Door, cupboards, screw holes	$650.00	Repairs: Door, cupboards, screw holes
Cleaning	$750.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$600.88	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,721.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,721.32

Order

This Order corrects and replaces the Order of the same NZTT number dated 03 August 2023.
No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Shonimay Dominique Jacinta Rodelle Anderson and Joseph Rupapera must pay Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers Acting Agent For Vaibhav & Priyanka Gahlout Singh $2,721.32 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

This was a rehearing following an application made by the landlord and granted on the papers on 15 September 2023.
The landlord attended the rehearing, the respondent did not.
The rehearing was to address a substantial wrong that occurred in the course of the two previous hearings, the first on 02 February 2023, and the second on 03 August 2023.
On 02 February 2023, the landlord applied for termination of the tenancy.
The Tribunal ordered termination of the tenancy and also ordered that the bond be released to the tenant. The landlord did not notice this second Order. The Bond Centre duly released the bond to the tenants.
When the landlord made a second application to the Tenancy Tribunal for damages, neither the landlord nor the Tribunal were aware that the bond had already been released to the tenant. The Tribunal ordered amongst other things, that the bond be released to the landlord, and this amount was deducted from the total payable to the landlord.
As there was no longer a bond for this tenancy at the Bond Centre, the landlord was unable to recover this amount for damages.
At the rehearing, it was established that a substantial wrong had occurred.
As the error was not an error of the Bond Centre, the Bond Centre is not empowered to reimburse the landlord.
The remedy is to adjust the award to the landlord by the amount of the bond. Other than that, no adjustments in quantum have been made.
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. 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.

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 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: a. Broken large window.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I am satisfied that the damage has been caused carelessly. No information was provided to prove the damage was caused intentionally. For this reason I make an award for the standard amount of an insurance excess to replace the window. I do not accept the landlord’s submission that because the tenant was breaching the tenancy agreement by keeping a dog on the premises, the insurance company can avoid paying out on this claim: the tenancy breach and the claim are not in any way connected.
There was a lack of information supporting the claims for high amounts for cleaning, lawns rubbish removal and the repairs. Further information was requested but had not been received in a timely manner. I have reduced some of the awards to what I consider to be reasonable amounts given in keeping with the information provided and given that the tenants are required only to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4543753 — Property damage at 21 Rathlin Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4543753 — Property damage at 21 Rathlin Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

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