What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4580269 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4580269?

Previous Order Application 4580269 D…: $2,151.12 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4580269?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4580269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9270238-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4580269 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4580269?

Previous Order Application 4580269 D…: $2,151.12 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4580269?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4580269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9270238-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

75 St Georges Road, Avondale, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4580269 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4580269 — net $2,211.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$60.00	Rent arrears
Previous order application 4580269 dated 17/07/2023	$2,151.12	Previous order application 4580269 dated 17/07/2023
Net award	$2,211.12
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,211.12

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Riria Daniels at 75 St Georges Road, Avondale, Auckland 0600 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.
Riria Daniels to pay [The landlord/s] $2,211.12 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,211.12 Riria Daniels: $388.88
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the first hearing. Only the landlord attended the second hearing. Both hearings were by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, and for compensation for rent arrears and gasfitter’s invoice return of the bond and the filing fee.
I part heard the matter on 17 July 2023 and made an order for rent arrears to that date, water rates to that date, and the filing fee. I think adjourned the matter part heard to allow the tenant an opportunity to have the arrears paid and avoid termination of the tenancy.
That order in incorporated into this order to convenience give then bond will cover the arrears, water rates and filing fee.
At the hearing today, the landlord confirmed that none of the arrears, water rates or filing fee had been paid. Further, the rent continued to be $30 short until 2 August 2023.
The landlord still seeks termination of the tenancy.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The tenant has breached their obligations by filing to pay rent in full, as it fell due, and failing to pay water rates.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 19 May 2023, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. In fact, the breach remains unremedied today.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because of the tenant’s ongoing failure to remedy the breach, despite notice and the opportunity afforded by the adjournment of the tenancy proceedings to allow this.

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: a. Damage to a gas exhaust outlet.
It is my view that the evidence does not establish that this is actual damage nor that it was careless of deliberate damage. The invoice from the gasfitter referred to a carpet covering the gas exhaust outlet. There is not evidence that this caused damage, just that the gas unit wasn’t working. Further, there is no evidence that this was a deliberate or careless act by the tenants.
Accordingly, I consider liability for this invoice to be the landlord’s responsibility and the application for compensation is declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4580269 — net $2,211.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$60.00	Rent arrears
Previous order application 4580269 dated 17/07/2023	$2,151.12	Previous order application 4580269 dated 17/07/2023
Net award	$2,211.12
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,211.12

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Riria Daniels at 75 St Georges Road, Avondale, Auckland 0600 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.
Riria Daniels to pay [The landlord/s] $2,211.12 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,211.12 Riria Daniels: $388.88
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the first hearing. Only the landlord attended the second hearing. Both hearings were by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, and for compensation for rent arrears and gasfitter’s invoice return of the bond and the filing fee.
I part heard the matter on 17 July 2023 and made an order for rent arrears to that date, water rates to that date, and the filing fee. I think adjourned the matter part heard to allow the tenant an opportunity to have the arrears paid and avoid termination of the tenancy.
That order in incorporated into this order to convenience give then bond will cover the arrears, water rates and filing fee.
At the hearing today, the landlord confirmed that none of the arrears, water rates or filing fee had been paid. Further, the rent continued to be $30 short until 2 August 2023.
The landlord still seeks termination of the tenancy.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The tenant has breached their obligations by filing to pay rent in full, as it fell due, and failing to pay water rates.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 19 May 2023, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. In fact, the breach remains unremedied today.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because of the tenant’s ongoing failure to remedy the breach, despite notice and the opportunity afforded by the adjournment of the tenancy proceedings to allow this.

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: a. Damage to a gas exhaust outlet.
It is my view that the evidence does not establish that this is actual damage nor that it was careless of deliberate damage. The invoice from the gasfitter referred to a carpet covering the gas exhaust outlet. There is not evidence that this caused damage, just that the gas unit wasn’t working. Further, there is no evidence that this was a deliberate or careless act by the tenants.
Accordingly, I consider liability for this invoice to be the landlord’s responsibility and the application for compensation is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4580269 — Rent arrears at 75 St Georges Road, Avondale, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4580269 — Rent arrears at 75 St Georges Road, Avondale, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions