How much money was awarded in case 4597630?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4597630?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4597630?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9250109-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4597630?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4597630?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4597630?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9250109-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat GH, 147 Hobson Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4597630 — Rent arrears

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4597630?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4597630 — net $220.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 June 2023	$1,350.00	Rent arrears to 17 June 2023
Repairs: Wall damage - contribution	$250.00	15. I therefore order the tenant to pay $250.00 for damage to the wall.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$220.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$220.44

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

The Bond Centre is to refund the bond of $1400.00 (5224842-017) to Auckland Rentals Limited t/a City Apartments Limited immediately.

Kaylem Keao Taku-Tamaiti Elder must pay Auckland Rentals Limited t/a City Apartments Limited $220.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Weibin Fan and George Song attended on behalf of the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing. DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears to 17 June 2023$1,350.00 Repairs: Wall damage - contribution$250.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$1,620.44 Less bond refund-$1,400.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$220.44

I am satisfied that the tenant had notice of the time and date of the hearing, therefore the hearing proceeded in her absence.

The landlord confirmed that the tenant moved out of the premises on 17 June 2023 and the tenancy is thus at an end.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided a clear rent summary which proves the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, namely $1350.00.

The amount ordered is 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.

In this case, the landlord claims for damage to a wall and to a light fixture in the bathroom.

The landlord has provided numerous photographs and the pre-entry inspection report from the beginning of the tenancy, along with photographs for the specific damage claims.

The landlord also provided an invoice for work undertaken to repair the damage.

After considering the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the damage to the lounge wall was caused during the tenancy. Although there were marks on other walls at the start of the tenancy, that particular wall appeared to be relatively damage free.

I am further satisfied that the wall damage is more than fair wear and tear and must have been caused either carelessly or intentionally by the tenant.

However, I consider the cost of $600.00 which was charged for fixing and repainting the entire wall is excessive. It is not clear why the entire wall required repainting and I must take 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.

I therefore order the tenant to pay $250.00 for damage to the wall.

In respect of the light fixture in the bathroom, it is less clear that this is a tenant liability because from what I can see the light fixture has come loose from its fitting. I am not able to determine whether any particular action has caused this to occur or whether the fitting has simply worn over time and loosened.

The landlord said during the hearing that the light fitting was “perfect” before the tenancy and that the tenant therefore “must have” done something to cause the light to come out of the fitting, although he could not proffer any explanation for how that might have happened. This is speculative.

Moreover, the pre-entry inspection report records the condition of the bathroom light and light fittings as “fair” which is difficult to reconcile with the claim that it was “perfect”.

This is a landlord claim and so the burden of proof rests on the landlord to establish that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. In relation to the light fixture, I am not satisfied that the landlord has been able to discharge their burden.

Therefore, this part of the claim is dismissed.

Because Auckland Rentals Limited t/a City Apartments Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. J R Smith 02 August 2023

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4597630 — net $220.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 June 2023	$1,350.00	Rent arrears to 17 June 2023
Repairs: Wall damage - contribution	$250.00	15. I therefore order the tenant to pay $250.00 for damage to the wall.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$220.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$220.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The Bond Centre is to refund the bond of $1400.00 (5224842-017) to Auckland Rentals Limited t/a City Apartments Limited immediately.
Kaylem Keao Taku-Tamaiti Elder must pay Auckland Rentals Limited t/a City Apartments Limited $220.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Weibin Fan and George Song attended on behalf of the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing. DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears to 17 June 2023$1,350.00 Repairs: Wall damage - contribution$250.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$1,620.44 Less bond refund-$1,400.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$220.44
I am satisfied that the tenant had notice of the time and date of the hearing, therefore the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord confirmed that the tenant moved out of the premises on 17 June 2023 and the tenancy is thus at an end.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided a clear rent summary which proves the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, namely $1350.00.
The amount ordered is 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.
In this case, the landlord claims for damage to a wall and to a light fixture in the bathroom.
The landlord has provided numerous photographs and the pre-entry inspection report from the beginning of the tenancy, along with photographs for the specific damage claims.
The landlord also provided an invoice for work undertaken to repair the damage.
After considering the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the damage to the lounge wall was caused during the tenancy. Although there were marks on other walls at the start of the tenancy, that particular wall appeared to be relatively damage free.
I am further satisfied that the wall damage is more than fair wear and tear and must have been caused either carelessly or intentionally by the tenant.
However, I consider the cost of $600.00 which was charged for fixing and repainting the entire wall is excessive. It is not clear why the entire wall required repainting and I must take 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.
I therefore order the tenant to pay $250.00 for damage to the wall.
In respect of the light fixture in the bathroom, it is less clear that this is a tenant liability because from what I can see the light fixture has come loose from its fitting. I am not able to determine whether any particular action has caused this to occur or whether the fitting has simply worn over time and loosened.
The landlord said during the hearing that the light fitting was “perfect” before the tenancy and that the tenant therefore “must have” done something to cause the light to come out of the fitting, although he could not proffer any explanation for how that might have happened. This is speculative.
Moreover, the pre-entry inspection report records the condition of the bathroom light and light fittings as “fair” which is difficult to reconcile with the claim that it was “perfect”.
This is a landlord claim and so the burden of proof rests on the landlord to establish that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. In relation to the light fixture, I am not satisfied that the landlord has been able to discharge their burden.
Therefore, this part of the claim is dismissed.
Because Auckland Rentals Limited t/a City Apartments Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. J R Smith 02 August 2023

Tenancy Tribunal case 4597630 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat GH, 147 Hobson Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4597630 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat GH, 147 Hobson Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions