What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4588097?

The tribunal order states: Genesis Eruera and Aaron Wilson must pay LC Management Limited T/A A

How much money was awarded in case 4588097?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4588097?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4588097?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9974620-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4588097?

The tribunal order states: Genesis Eruera and Aaron Wilson must pay LC Management Limited T/A A

How much money was awarded in case 4588097?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4588097?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4588097?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9974620-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 403, 10 Ronayne Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4588097 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4588097 — net $720.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Damage to a TV	$400.00	Damage to a TV
Damage to a bed	$200.00	Damage to a bed
Damage to toilet seat	$100.00	Damage to toilet seat
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$720.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$720.44

Order

Genesis Eruera and Aaron Wilson must pay LC Management Limited T/A A Grade Rental Homes As Agent For Kam Hung Chiu $720.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The landlord’s claim for cleaning is struck out on the basis that it has already been adjudicated on.

Reasons

A hearing was held on 16 January 2024. The agent for the landlord and the owner attended the hearing. The other party did not attend. I am satisfied that the tenants have had adequate notice of the hearing and proceeded with the hearing in their absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning ($517.50), damage to the TV ($455.00), damage to the bed ($400.00), damage to toilet seat ($200.00) and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing was briefly adjourned for the landlord to provide to the Tribunal a copy of the receipt/invoice for the replacement toilet seat. On 2 February 2024, the owner advised that he was unable to find the receipt. Therefore, the Tribunal has proceeded to finalise an order. Service
Section 91A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 ("RTA") provides that if a landlord files an application more than two months after the termination of the tenancy, any notice required to be served on the tenant must be served either personally; or by posting to a contact address that the tenant has supplied to the landlord in writing within the two months before the application; or by delivering it to a place where the tenant now lives and giving it to any person appearing to be at least 16 years old who appears to be residing at that address and who confirms that the tenant resides there; or by giving it to any solicitor or agent of the tenant duly authorised by the tenant to receive service on his or her behalf.
Section 91B RTA provides that if a notice is not served in accordance with the Act, the Tribunal may nevertheless hear and determine the matter if it is satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to serve the party as required by the Act and the failure to serve as required is not due to any fault or unreasonable delay by the applicant.
This application was filed by the landlord more than 2 months after the tenancy ended and section 91A(2) therefore applies. Service as required by that section has not been effected. However, I am applying section 91B and proceeded to hear the matter because I am satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to serve the tenants and the failure to serve is not due to any fault by the landlord. I say this because the evidence shows the landlord had been to the Tribunal previously and tried to amend the application at that time but was advised to file a fresh application as the tenants had not been served with the amended claims. The evidence also shows that the tenants were aware or ought to be aware that a further application by the landlord and hearing was required.

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) RTA.
The landlord claimed $517.50 for cleaning. This claim was previously adjudicated on by the Tribunal (see Tribunal order dated 11 May 2023, application 4486403). The Tribunal stated:
The landlord says that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and seeks compensation in the amount of $517.50 for cleaning.
As noted above, it is for the landlord to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities.
Although the landlord provided the ingoing inspection report and photographs, there was limited photographic evidence as to the state of the property when the tenants vacated the premises.
The photographs that were provided related to specific items claimed for damage and did not establish that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
Accordingly, there is insufficient evidence to establish this claim and it is therefore dismissed.
As I explained to the parties at the hearing, as this claim has already been considered by the Tribunal, a further hearing on the claim is not permitted. The claim is ‘res judicata’ and cannot be re-opened. If the landlord considered that the Tribunal was wrong, then that would be a matter for appeal to the District Court.

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.
The landlord must provide sufficient evidence to discharge their burden of proof for each claim.
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 says damage was caused during the tenancy to a TV, bed and toilet seat.
Damage to a TV – The landlord claims $455.00 for a replacement TV. I am satisfied the landlord has proved the TV was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord relied on the ingoing property inspection report including photographs and photographic evidence of the damage at the end of the tenancy. As the TV was fairly new at the start and taking into account depreciation, I allow $400.00 as reasonable compensation.
Damage to a bed – The landlord claims $400.00 for damage to a bed. While there is no photographic evidence of the condition of the bed base at the start, I accept the property manager and owner’s direct evidence that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. Taking into account depreciation, I allow $200.00 as the bed was likely halfway through its estimated life.
Damage to a toilet seat – The landlord claims $200.00 for a replacement toilet seat. I am satisfied that the landlord has proved the toilet seat was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord relied on the ingoing property inspection report including photographs and photographic evidence of the damage at the end of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord was unable to provide a receipt or invoice of the replacement toilet seat. I have awarded $100.00 as fair and reasonable compensation.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I consider it reasonable to order the other party to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4588097 — net $720.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Damage to a TV	$400.00	Damage to a TV
Damage to a bed	$200.00	Damage to a bed
Damage to toilet seat	$100.00	Damage to toilet seat
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$720.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$720.44

Order

Genesis Eruera and Aaron Wilson must pay LC Management Limited T/A A Grade Rental Homes As Agent For Kam Hung Chiu $720.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The landlord’s claim for cleaning is struck out on the basis that it has already been adjudicated on.

Reasons

A hearing was held on 16 January 2024. The agent for the landlord and the owner attended the hearing. The other party did not attend. I am satisfied that the tenants have had adequate notice of the hearing and proceeded with the hearing in their absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning ($517.50), damage to the TV ($455.00), damage to the bed ($400.00), damage to toilet seat ($200.00) and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing was briefly adjourned for the landlord to provide to the Tribunal a copy of the receipt/invoice for the replacement toilet seat. On 2 February 2024, the owner advised that he was unable to find the receipt. Therefore, the Tribunal has proceeded to finalise an order. Service
Section 91A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 ("RTA") provides that if a landlord files an application more than two months after the termination of the tenancy, any notice required to be served on the tenant must be served either personally; or by posting to a contact address that the tenant has supplied to the landlord in writing within the two months before the application; or by delivering it to a place where the tenant now lives and giving it to any person appearing to be at least 16 years old who appears to be residing at that address and who confirms that the tenant resides there; or by giving it to any solicitor or agent of the tenant duly authorised by the tenant to receive service on his or her behalf.
Section 91B RTA provides that if a notice is not served in accordance with the Act, the Tribunal may nevertheless hear and determine the matter if it is satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to serve the party as required by the Act and the failure to serve as required is not due to any fault or unreasonable delay by the applicant.
This application was filed by the landlord more than 2 months after the tenancy ended and section 91A(2) therefore applies. Service as required by that section has not been effected. However, I am applying section 91B and proceeded to hear the matter because I am satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to serve the tenants and the failure to serve is not due to any fault by the landlord. I say this because the evidence shows the landlord had been to the Tribunal previously and tried to amend the application at that time but was advised to file a fresh application as the tenants had not been served with the amended claims. The evidence also shows that the tenants were aware or ought to be aware that a further application by the landlord and hearing was required.

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) RTA.
The landlord claimed $517.50 for cleaning. This claim was previously adjudicated on by the Tribunal (see Tribunal order dated 11 May 2023, application 4486403). The Tribunal stated:
The landlord says that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and seeks compensation in the amount of $517.50 for cleaning.
As noted above, it is for the landlord to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities.
Although the landlord provided the ingoing inspection report and photographs, there was limited photographic evidence as to the state of the property when the tenants vacated the premises.
The photographs that were provided related to specific items claimed for damage and did not establish that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
Accordingly, there is insufficient evidence to establish this claim and it is therefore dismissed.
As I explained to the parties at the hearing, as this claim has already been considered by the Tribunal, a further hearing on the claim is not permitted. The claim is ‘res judicata’ and cannot be re-opened. If the landlord considered that the Tribunal was wrong, then that would be a matter for appeal to the District Court.

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.
The landlord must provide sufficient evidence to discharge their burden of proof for each claim.
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 says damage was caused during the tenancy to a TV, bed and toilet seat.
Damage to a TV – The landlord claims $455.00 for a replacement TV. I am satisfied the landlord has proved the TV was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord relied on the ingoing property inspection report including photographs and photographic evidence of the damage at the end of the tenancy. As the TV was fairly new at the start and taking into account depreciation, I allow $400.00 as reasonable compensation.
Damage to a bed – The landlord claims $400.00 for damage to a bed. While there is no photographic evidence of the condition of the bed base at the start, I accept the property manager and owner’s direct evidence that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. Taking into account depreciation, I allow $200.00 as the bed was likely halfway through its estimated life.
Damage to a toilet seat – The landlord claims $200.00 for a replacement toilet seat. I am satisfied that the landlord has proved the toilet seat was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord relied on the ingoing property inspection report including photographs and photographic evidence of the damage at the end of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord was unable to provide a receipt or invoice of the replacement toilet seat. I have awarded $100.00 as fair and reasonable compensation.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I consider it reasonable to order the other party to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4588097 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 403, 10 Ronayne Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4588097 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 403, 10 Ronayne Street, Auckland Central,

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