What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4617835?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4617835?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,180.00 awarded to landlord; General: $1,449.00 awarded to landlord; Shower: $1,038.74 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,252.61 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $73.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4617835?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4617835?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9272221-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4617835?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4617835?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,180.00 awarded to landlord; General: $1,449.00 awarded to landlord; Shower: $1,038.74 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,252.61 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $73.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4617835?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4617835?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9272221-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16A Capricorn Place, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4617835 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4617835 — net $3,844.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,180.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$73.40	Water rates
Repairs: Shower	$1,038.74	Repairs: Shower
Rubbish removal	$1,252.61	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$210.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: General	$1,449.00	Repairs: General
Net award	$3,844.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,844.19

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Benjamin Jonathan Goodenough and Joshua Jason Fabish must pay Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers Acting Agent For Suren Prasad $3,844.19 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (5454490-002) to Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers Acting Agent For Suren Prasad immediately.

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.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Mr Goodenough gave 28-days notice ending the tenancy on 23 June 2023. By the time Mr Goodenough gave notice, Mr Fabish had vacated the premises, although no variation to the tenancy agreement had been made. Mr Goodenough, for reasons of his own did not leave the premises until 5 July 2023. When Mr Goodenough finally left, other people who were known to Mr Goodenough and had been staying at the premises with Mr Goodenough’s consent, continued staying there.
The landlord was notified when Mr Goodenough left the premises, and they visited the property on 6 July 2023. The other people who were still at the premises, didn't leave. The landlord returned again on 10 July 2023 and on this date the property was vacated. The landlord then conducted an exit inspection.
I find that the tenancy ended on 23 June 2023 as per the lawful notice given by Mr Goodenough and accepted by the landlord. The occupation of the premises thereafter by Mr Goodenough and anyone else, did not have a lawful basis: the landlord was entitled to seek a possession order for the premises and the fact that they did not, was a matter for them. Rent due until the date of 23 June 2023 was $2180.00.
The landlord is claiming water rates of $86.53 to cover the period of 13 April 2023 until 18 July 2023. Despite Mr Goodenough having no lawful basis, in tenancy law, for remaining at the property between 23 June 2023 and 5 July 2023, I don’t see any reason why he shouldn’t be liable for the water use charges incurred over that period. I have reduced the water bill to $73.40 to allow for the fact that he was no longer at the premises after 5 July 2023.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.

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 general damage was caused during the tenancy. Compensation sought is listed in Column A, and compensation awarded is listed in Column B based on the evidence presented at the hearing: General DamageColumn AColumn B Repair to bedroom cupboard$450.00$250.00 Repair to cupboard floor$420.00$0.00 Rubbish removal labour$420.00$420.00 Graffiti repairs$480.00$240.00 Heat pump control$140.00$140.00 Hole in lounge wall$95.00$60.00 Hole in bedroom 2$275.00$150.00 Plus GST$342.00$189.00 TOTAL$2622.00$1449.00
As well as this damage, a shower door was removed from a shower unit while Mr Goodenough was absent from the property in May 2023. Having considered the information presented I am satisfied this was the result of an intentional act. Mr Goodenough challenged the amount quoted to repair the shower door and made a comment about the landlord owning the repair company. In response the landlord presented a second quote for the same job by an alternative company for $2157.40.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I have considered whether the damage occurred before 23 June 2023 when the tenancy ended, or after 23 June 2023 when Mr Goodenough was no longer responsible for the property. I am satisfied from the evidence I heard, that on the balance of probabilities, the damage occurred during Mr Goodenough’s tenancy. The exception to this was the hole under Mr Goodenough’s cupboard which I find was present but not noted at the beginning of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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 also provided information regarding the removal of rubbish from the property following the end of the tenancy. Mr Goodenough confirmed that the photos provided by the landlord accurately depict the amount of belongings that were in the property while he and Mr Fabish held the lease. Even though these belongings were not Mr Goodenough’s personally, as the named tenants, he and Mr Fabish are responsible for disposing of them at the end of the tenancy.
Because Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers Acting Agent For Suren Prasad has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4617835 — net $3,844.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,180.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$73.40	Water rates
Repairs: Shower	$1,038.74	Repairs: Shower
Rubbish removal	$1,252.61	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$210.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: General	$1,449.00	Repairs: General
Net award	$3,844.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,844.19

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Benjamin Jonathan Goodenough and Joshua Jason Fabish must pay Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers Acting Agent For Suren Prasad $3,844.19 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (5454490-002) to Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers Acting Agent For Suren Prasad immediately.

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.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Mr Goodenough gave 28-days notice ending the tenancy on 23 June 2023. By the time Mr Goodenough gave notice, Mr Fabish had vacated the premises, although no variation to the tenancy agreement had been made. Mr Goodenough, for reasons of his own did not leave the premises until 5 July 2023. When Mr Goodenough finally left, other people who were known to Mr Goodenough and had been staying at the premises with Mr Goodenough’s consent, continued staying there.
The landlord was notified when Mr Goodenough left the premises, and they visited the property on 6 July 2023. The other people who were still at the premises, didn't leave. The landlord returned again on 10 July 2023 and on this date the property was vacated. The landlord then conducted an exit inspection.
I find that the tenancy ended on 23 June 2023 as per the lawful notice given by Mr Goodenough and accepted by the landlord. The occupation of the premises thereafter by Mr Goodenough and anyone else, did not have a lawful basis: the landlord was entitled to seek a possession order for the premises and the fact that they did not, was a matter for them. Rent due until the date of 23 June 2023 was $2180.00.
The landlord is claiming water rates of $86.53 to cover the period of 13 April 2023 until 18 July 2023. Despite Mr Goodenough having no lawful basis, in tenancy law, for remaining at the property between 23 June 2023 and 5 July 2023, I don’t see any reason why he shouldn’t be liable for the water use charges incurred over that period. I have reduced the water bill to $73.40 to allow for the fact that he was no longer at the premises after 5 July 2023.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.

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 general damage was caused during the tenancy. Compensation sought is listed in Column A, and compensation awarded is listed in Column B based on the evidence presented at the hearing: General DamageColumn AColumn B Repair to bedroom cupboard$450.00$250.00 Repair to cupboard floor$420.00$0.00 Rubbish removal labour$420.00$420.00 Graffiti repairs$480.00$240.00 Heat pump control$140.00$140.00 Hole in lounge wall$95.00$60.00 Hole in bedroom 2$275.00$150.00 Plus GST$342.00$189.00 TOTAL$2622.00$1449.00
As well as this damage, a shower door was removed from a shower unit while Mr Goodenough was absent from the property in May 2023. Having considered the information presented I am satisfied this was the result of an intentional act. Mr Goodenough challenged the amount quoted to repair the shower door and made a comment about the landlord owning the repair company. In response the landlord presented a second quote for the same job by an alternative company for $2157.40.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I have considered whether the damage occurred before 23 June 2023 when the tenancy ended, or after 23 June 2023 when Mr Goodenough was no longer responsible for the property. I am satisfied from the evidence I heard, that on the balance of probabilities, the damage occurred during Mr Goodenough’s tenancy. The exception to this was the hole under Mr Goodenough’s cupboard which I find was present but not noted at the beginning of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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 also provided information regarding the removal of rubbish from the property following the end of the tenancy. Mr Goodenough confirmed that the photos provided by the landlord accurately depict the amount of belongings that were in the property while he and Mr Fabish held the lease. Even though these belongings were not Mr Goodenough’s personally, as the named tenants, he and Mr Fabish are responsible for disposing of them at the end of the tenancy.
Because Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers Acting Agent For Suren Prasad has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4617835 — Property damage at 16A Capricorn Place, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4617835 — Property damage at 16A Capricorn Place, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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