What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4614812?

The tribunal order states: Jade Lamb, Nicola Bebelman, Ethan Hare to pay Bray Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4614812?

Amounts Paid By Tenant To Landlord T…: $1,300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing Costs Incurred To Facil…: $309.35 awarded to landlord; Premises: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Re-letting fees and costs: to break…: $571.54 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $357.14 awarded to landlord; Walls: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4614812?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4614812?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9484140-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4614812?

The tribunal order states: Jade Lamb, Nicola Bebelman, Ethan Hare to pay Bray Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4614812?

Amounts Paid By Tenant To Landlord T…: $1,300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing Costs Incurred To Facil…: $309.35 awarded to landlord; Premises: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Re-letting fees and costs: to break…: $571.54 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $357.14 awarded to landlord; Walls: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4614812?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4614812?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9484140-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

39 King Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4614812 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4614812 — net $608.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 July 2023	$357.14		Rent arrears to 31 July 2023
Re-letting fees and costs: to break fixed term tenancy	$571.54		Re-letting fees and costs: to break fixed term tenancy
Meth testing costs incurred to facilitate re-letting of	$309.35		Meth testing costs incurred to facilitate re-letting of
premises	$150.00		premises
Repairs: walls	$550.00		Repairs: walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: late lodgment of bond		$50.00	late lodgment of bond
Amounts paid by tenant to landlord to break fixed term		$1,300.00	Amounts paid by tenant to landlord to break fixed term
Total award	$1,958.47	$1,350.00
Net award	$608.47
Bond	$4,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$608.47

Order

Jade Lamb, Nicola Bebelman, Ethan Hare to pay Bray Property Management Limited $608.47 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,000.00 (3046718-027) immediately apportioned as follows: Bray Property Management Limited: $608.47 Jade Lamb, Nicola Bebelman, Ethan Hare: $3,391.53

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for damages, exemplary damages and return of the bond and all or part of the $1,300.00 paid to the landlord following the premature end of the fixed term tenancy.
This was a fixed term tenancy between Ms Lamb, Ms Bebelman and Mr Hare as tenants and Bray Property Management Limited as landlord from 3 March 2023 to 27 January 2024. Just prior to Mr Hare signing the tenancy agreement on 3 March 2023, Ms Lamb and Ms Bebelman were joint tenants of the same fixed term tenancy from 16 November 2022 onwards.
Properly construed, the initial fixed term tenancy between Ms Lamb and Ms Bebelman and Bray Property Management Limited came to an end by mutual consent on 2 March 2023 immediately before the new fixed term tenancy between Ms Lamb, Ms Bebelman and Mr Hare came into effect from 3 March 2023 until 27 January 2024.
Accordingly, this current tenancy (and claims arising from the tenancy) are between only Ms Lamb, Ms Bebelman and Mr Hare as tenants and Bray Property Management Limited as landlord. No other tenants have signed the fixed term tenancy agreement.

How much is owed for rent?

The fixed term tenancy ended on 31 July 2023 after the tenant and the landlord agreed to a mutual termination of the tenancy and the premises being relet on 1 August 2023.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied the amounts charged by the landlord of $571.54 and $309.35 respectively to re-let the premises and methamphetamine testing costs have been reasonably incurred.

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 did not leave the kitchen (floor and oven) area of the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Accordingly, the tenant should only be responsible for reasonable cleaning costs in relation to the affected areas. I accept the tenant’s submission that the landlord’s own exit inspection report only takes issue with the cleanliness of the kitchen (floor and oven) area of the premises. Consequently, I have not acceded to the entire claim for $490.00 cleaning costs for the entire property.
Only the amounts ordered are 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.
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.
The walls to one of the four bedrooms were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved on wall repairs appears to be covered by the landlord's insurance which is subject to a $550.00 insurance excess; the tenant's liability is therefore limited to the lesser of the insurance excess.
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.

Has the landlord breached its obligations on bond lodgment?

Jade Lamb, Nicola Bebelman, Ethan Hare and Bjorn Nunes claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord only lodged the bond on 24 January 2023 despite receiving the bond on 16 November 2022. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have had regard to the landlord’s explanation that the bond lodgment form was not completed or signed by the tenant until 19 December 2022. The landlord’s requirement under section 19(2) states that the bond “together with a statement of particulars in the approved form signed by the landlord and the tenant” must be forwarded to the Bond Centre at the same time.
However, despite the bond lodgment form (being the statement of particulars in the approved form) being signed by the landlord and the tenant on 19 December 2022 and given to the landlord on that date, the landlord still failed to lodge the bond together with the form within 23 working days thereafter. I can only accept to a limited degree the experienced landlord’s (who is a professional property manager) explanation that Christmas and New Year holidays were to blame for the delay. The bond could clearly have been lodged in the 5 working days prior to Christmas 2022.
Having regard to the above factors, I consider that a nominal award of exemplary damages of $50.00 is appropriate.
The remaining claims by the tenant for damages are unsuccessful; there is no independent or objective evidence from the tenant that the premises suffered from inherent dampness and mould.
I exercise my discretion to award the filing fee to the landlord whom I consider has partly/substantially succeeded on the claims before me.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4614812 — net $608.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 July 2023	$357.14		Rent arrears to 31 July 2023
Re-letting fees and costs: to break fixed term tenancy	$571.54		Re-letting fees and costs: to break fixed term tenancy
Meth testing costs incurred to facilitate re-letting of	$309.35		Meth testing costs incurred to facilitate re-letting of
premises	$150.00		premises
Repairs: walls	$550.00		Repairs: walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: late lodgment of bond		$50.00	late lodgment of bond
Amounts paid by tenant to landlord to break fixed term		$1,300.00	Amounts paid by tenant to landlord to break fixed term
Total award	$1,958.47	$1,350.00
Net award	$608.47
Bond	$4,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$608.47

Order

Jade Lamb, Nicola Bebelman, Ethan Hare to pay Bray Property Management Limited $608.47 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,000.00 (3046718-027) immediately apportioned as follows: Bray Property Management Limited: $608.47 Jade Lamb, Nicola Bebelman, Ethan Hare: $3,391.53

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for damages, exemplary damages and return of the bond and all or part of the $1,300.00 paid to the landlord following the premature end of the fixed term tenancy.
This was a fixed term tenancy between Ms Lamb, Ms Bebelman and Mr Hare as tenants and Bray Property Management Limited as landlord from 3 March 2023 to 27 January 2024. Just prior to Mr Hare signing the tenancy agreement on 3 March 2023, Ms Lamb and Ms Bebelman were joint tenants of the same fixed term tenancy from 16 November 2022 onwards.
Properly construed, the initial fixed term tenancy between Ms Lamb and Ms Bebelman and Bray Property Management Limited came to an end by mutual consent on 2 March 2023 immediately before the new fixed term tenancy between Ms Lamb, Ms Bebelman and Mr Hare came into effect from 3 March 2023 until 27 January 2024.
Accordingly, this current tenancy (and claims arising from the tenancy) are between only Ms Lamb, Ms Bebelman and Mr Hare as tenants and Bray Property Management Limited as landlord. No other tenants have signed the fixed term tenancy agreement.

How much is owed for rent?

The fixed term tenancy ended on 31 July 2023 after the tenant and the landlord agreed to a mutual termination of the tenancy and the premises being relet on 1 August 2023.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied the amounts charged by the landlord of $571.54 and $309.35 respectively to re-let the premises and methamphetamine testing costs have been reasonably incurred.

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 did not leave the kitchen (floor and oven) area of the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Accordingly, the tenant should only be responsible for reasonable cleaning costs in relation to the affected areas. I accept the tenant’s submission that the landlord’s own exit inspection report only takes issue with the cleanliness of the kitchen (floor and oven) area of the premises. Consequently, I have not acceded to the entire claim for $490.00 cleaning costs for the entire property.
Only the amounts ordered are 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.
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.
The walls to one of the four bedrooms were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved on wall repairs appears to be covered by the landlord's insurance which is subject to a $550.00 insurance excess; the tenant's liability is therefore limited to the lesser of the insurance excess.
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.

Has the landlord breached its obligations on bond lodgment?

Jade Lamb, Nicola Bebelman, Ethan Hare and Bjorn Nunes claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord only lodged the bond on 24 January 2023 despite receiving the bond on 16 November 2022. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have had regard to the landlord’s explanation that the bond lodgment form was not completed or signed by the tenant until 19 December 2022. The landlord’s requirement under section 19(2) states that the bond “together with a statement of particulars in the approved form signed by the landlord and the tenant” must be forwarded to the Bond Centre at the same time.
However, despite the bond lodgment form (being the statement of particulars in the approved form) being signed by the landlord and the tenant on 19 December 2022 and given to the landlord on that date, the landlord still failed to lodge the bond together with the form within 23 working days thereafter. I can only accept to a limited degree the experienced landlord’s (who is a professional property manager) explanation that Christmas and New Year holidays were to blame for the delay. The bond could clearly have been lodged in the 5 working days prior to Christmas 2022.
Having regard to the above factors, I consider that a nominal award of exemplary damages of $50.00 is appropriate.
The remaining claims by the tenant for damages are unsuccessful; there is no independent or objective evidence from the tenant that the premises suffered from inherent dampness and mould.
I exercise my discretion to award the filing fee to the landlord whom I consider has partly/substantially succeeded on the claims before me.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4614812 — Property damage at 39 King Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4614812 — Property damage at 39 King Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Has the landlord breached its obligations on bond lodgment?

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?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Has the landlord breached its obligations on bond lodgment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions