What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4588072 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 4588072?

S Name And Identifying Details. 2. H…: $2,369.01 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4588072?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4588072?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9187500-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4588072 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 4588072?

S Name And Identifying Details. 2. H…: $2,369.01 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4588072?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4588072?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9187500-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4588072 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4588072. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
s name and identifying details. 2. Helen Puatolo, Sepulona Faigafa, Dilijune Puatolo and Albert-lee Ratima owe [The land	$2,369.01		s name and identifying details. 2. Helen Puatolo, Sepulona Faigafa, Dilijune Puatolo and Albert-lee Ratima owe [The land

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Helen Puatolo, Sepulona Faigafa, Dilijune Puatolo and Albert-lee Ratima owe [The landlord/s] $2,369.01 for rent owing as at today’s date (“the debt”).
Helen Puatolo, Sepulona Faigafa, Dilijune Puatolo and Albert-lee Ratima must pay the debt by one payment of $2,369.01 on or before 5pm 25 July 2023. They must continue to make weekly rent payments as they fall due.
If the tenants fail to pay the debt within 2 working days of the due date, the tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed] will terminate, the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises and the balance of the debt will be payable immediately.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water rates and compensation for repairs.
The tenants want to repay the debt to avoid immediate termination.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Where rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed, the Tribunal must make either a final or a conditional termination order. See section 55(1)(a) and (1A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied the amount owing for rent as at today is as stated above and that the tenants will pay the debt within the period specified in the order and are unlikely to commit any further relevant breach. I have granted a conditional termination order.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenants breach the order, the possession order may be enforced for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord is claiming $531.30 for water rates.
The tenants claim they have not received any invoices for water since 11 November 2022. At that time, the landlord installed a new software system. The tenants have not received any follow ups about unpaid water either, but the landlord says these have been sent.
The tenants do not appear to be disputing the amount of the water bills; but they say they have not received them.
The landlord has not produced the actual water bills.
This aspect of the claim fails because the bills have not been provided to the Tribunal, but also because I accept the tenant’s evidence that they have not received the bills. I accept the landlord’s evidence that these have been sent but they are clearly not reaching the tenants.

Are the tenants 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 landlord claims that drains were blocked by the tenants and that it incurred $1370.11 on 30 November 2022 plus a further $424.81 on 24 February 2023 to unblock the drains.
With respect to the first bill, the tenants say that as soon as they moved in in October 2022, they noticed that the showers would be very slow to drain. After a few weeks they noticed an outside drain was overflowing and producing a very bad smell. They complained about this to the landlord. A drain unblocker came out to the property in November 2022 and unblocked the drains.
The problem then went away but came back on about 12 December. A further message was sent to the landlord. The drain unblocker was sent back the following February and the second invoice incurred.
The second invoice was not produced, only the first.
The tenants therefore claim the issue was pre-existing. They also claim they have thrown nothing down the toilet or drains such as wipes and the like.
I accept the tenant’s evidence in this regard. I also find that the issue has emerged so soon into the tenant’s ownership, it is clear it must have been existing.
I have no history of the drain; other than the landlord’s evidence this is a new development and that she has been managing the property only a few years.
I find that the landlord has not proven the repairs were required as a result of a breach by the tenants of their obligations not to damage the landlord’s property. There was no expert report or maintenance schedule provided regarding the drain. Nor was the second invoice provided.
This aspect of the claim is dismissed.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4588072. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
s name and identifying details. 2. Helen Puatolo, Sepulona Faigafa, Dilijune Puatolo and Albert-lee Ratima owe [The land	$2,369.01		s name and identifying details. 2. Helen Puatolo, Sepulona Faigafa, Dilijune Puatolo and Albert-lee Ratima owe [The land

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Helen Puatolo, Sepulona Faigafa, Dilijune Puatolo and Albert-lee Ratima owe [The landlord/s] $2,369.01 for rent owing as at today’s date (“the debt”).
Helen Puatolo, Sepulona Faigafa, Dilijune Puatolo and Albert-lee Ratima must pay the debt by one payment of $2,369.01 on or before 5pm 25 July 2023. They must continue to make weekly rent payments as they fall due.
If the tenants fail to pay the debt within 2 working days of the due date, the tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed] will terminate, the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises and the balance of the debt will be payable immediately.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water rates and compensation for repairs.
The tenants want to repay the debt to avoid immediate termination.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Where rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed, the Tribunal must make either a final or a conditional termination order. See section 55(1)(a) and (1A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied the amount owing for rent as at today is as stated above and that the tenants will pay the debt within the period specified in the order and are unlikely to commit any further relevant breach. I have granted a conditional termination order.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenants breach the order, the possession order may be enforced for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord is claiming $531.30 for water rates.
The tenants claim they have not received any invoices for water since 11 November 2022. At that time, the landlord installed a new software system. The tenants have not received any follow ups about unpaid water either, but the landlord says these have been sent.
The tenants do not appear to be disputing the amount of the water bills; but they say they have not received them.
The landlord has not produced the actual water bills.
This aspect of the claim fails because the bills have not been provided to the Tribunal, but also because I accept the tenant’s evidence that they have not received the bills. I accept the landlord’s evidence that these have been sent but they are clearly not reaching the tenants.

Are the tenants 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 landlord claims that drains were blocked by the tenants and that it incurred $1370.11 on 30 November 2022 plus a further $424.81 on 24 February 2023 to unblock the drains.
With respect to the first bill, the tenants say that as soon as they moved in in October 2022, they noticed that the showers would be very slow to drain. After a few weeks they noticed an outside drain was overflowing and producing a very bad smell. They complained about this to the landlord. A drain unblocker came out to the property in November 2022 and unblocked the drains.
The problem then went away but came back on about 12 December. A further message was sent to the landlord. The drain unblocker was sent back the following February and the second invoice incurred.
The second invoice was not produced, only the first.
The tenants therefore claim the issue was pre-existing. They also claim they have thrown nothing down the toilet or drains such as wipes and the like.
I accept the tenant’s evidence in this regard. I also find that the issue has emerged so soon into the tenant’s ownership, it is clear it must have been existing.
I have no history of the drain; other than the landlord’s evidence this is a new development and that she has been managing the property only a few years.
I find that the landlord has not proven the repairs were required as a result of a breach by the tenants of their obligations not to damage the landlord’s property. There was no expert report or maintenance schedule provided regarding the drain. Nor was the second invoice provided.
This aspect of the claim is dismissed.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4588072 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4588072 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

How much is owed for water rates?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

How much is owed for water rates?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions