What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4666269?

The tribunal order states: Name suppression has been sought however this has not been granted to the

How much money was awarded in case 4666269?

Rent Arrears: $91.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,587.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat Cover: $143.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4666269?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4666269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9616908-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4666269?

The tribunal order states: Name suppression has been sought however this has not been granted to the

How much money was awarded in case 4666269?

Rent Arrears: $91.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,587.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat Cover: $143.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4666269?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4666269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9616908-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

69 Dundale Avenue, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4666269 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4666269. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 6 November 2023	$91.43	2. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, exemplary d…
Repairs: Replacement doors	$1,587.00	Repairs: Replacement doors
Repairs: Toilet seat cover	$143.75	Repairs: Toilet seat cover

Order

Name suppression has been sought however this has not been granted to the Landlord.
The tenancy of Kylie Marie Grace Finnerty at 69 Dundale Avenue, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600 is terminated, and possession is granted to Tbt Property Management Limited, at 12pm on 15 November 2023.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,822.18 (3304053-014) to Tbt Property Management Limited immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant attended the hearing in the last 15 minutes. The Tenant sent a message one hour before the hearing advising she would be half an hour late and the Tribunal waited for her. The Tribunal then commenced after that time.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, exemplary damages and refund of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to clean, failing to remove their dogs from the property, failing to repair the wall damage and failing to remove extensive rubbish on the exterior of the property.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 24 July 2023 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because cleaning, rubbish and repair issues were ongoing. The Landlord had requested the Tenants repeatedly to remove their dogs since May 2023 and the house smelt like urine. The repairs and cleaning were still not remedied after a 10-day notice was provided. There were further reminder notices provided to the Tenant on 11 August 2023 and 27 October 2023 however these were not all remedied at the date of the hearing.
The tenancy is terminated. Rent arrears and water rates arrears
The landlord has applied for rent arrears of $690.00 up to 6 November 2023. The Landlord claimed one weeks rent because the Tenant always paid on a Monday however the due date for rent was the prior Sunday. In perusing the rent summary, the Tribunal notes that rent was paid on Sunday 5 November 2023. The new rent week started on 6 November 2023 so only one day of rent has accrued since the end of the last rent cycle. The Tribunal can only order rent arrears up to the day of the hearing.
The amount ordered is proved.
The Landlord has applied for water rates arrears of $1408.61 however no Watercare invoices were received from the Landlord to substantiate the claim. The Landlord submitted at the hearing they had sent these to the Tribunal but nothing was filed so the Tribunal requested they send these during the hearing. This did not come through.
For this reason, the claim is dismissed.

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 damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to three doors, removal of the toilet seat cover, stains to carpet in bedroom 1 and damage to the walls.
The Landlord submitted replacement doors were required because there was a hole in the cupboard door of bedroom 1. There was also damage to bedroom 1 door where the Tenant attempted to repair these but failed to complete it properly. There was further damage to a door by the hallway. Photographs were provided of the damage, the ingoing inspection report showing there was no initial damage and an invoice to substantiate the cost.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The Landlord claimed the toilet seat cover was removed. An ingoing and mid- tenancy inspection report were provided to show the damage occurred during the tenancy. An invoice was also provided to substantiate the costs claimed.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The Landlord claimed the carpet in bedroom 1 required replacing because there was extensive staining. The ingoing inspection report showed there was no stains. The mid-tenancy inspection report showed there were a few stains in the bedroom however the bedroom was filled with the Tenants belongings so the amount of visible stains in the photographs provided did not justify why the carpet required replacing. The Landlord claimed the carpet smelt of dog urine. They also submitted they did not try to clean the stains because it was difficult to remove this. The carpet required replacing.
It is noted the inspection report dated on 9 August 2023 only referred to the carpet requiring cleaning.
In considering the evidence, the photographs showed only a few stains in the bedroom but not enough to warrant a whole replacement of the carpet. The Landlord did not make any attempts to clean it through a Professional cleaning service. Had they provided evidence from a Professional cleaning service that they could not remove the stains or provided photographs of the full extent of stain coverage or evidence from carpet specialists that they could not patch the stains, this would have been persuasive that the carpet required replacing.
For these reasons, the claim is dismissed.
The Landlord claimed for painting of the whole property due to the damages to the walls. A mid-tenancy inspection report was provided which showed some damages to the walls and an ingoing inspection report showed these were caused during the tenancy. An invoice was not provided to prove the painting would cost $3500.00.
For this reason, the claim is dismissed. Cleaning
The Landlord claimed cleaning of $1,500.00 however the tenancy had not ended. The Tenant should have an opportunity to vacate and clean before it can be assessed properly what requires cleaning.
For this reason, the claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages
The Landlord claimed for exemplary damages because the Tenant had two dogs on the property which the Landlord discovered upon inspection of the property in May 2023. The Landlord submitted they went to the property on at least two other occasions and saw the dogs there. There were dog bones on and dog faeces on the deck which made the Landlord believe the dogs lived there. The Landlord sent multiple letters to the Tenant requesting they remove the dogs.
The Tenant advised the Landlord that they were looking after the dogs that they belonged to their friends.
Exemplary damages are awarded for unlawful acts which are defined in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Not all breaches are unlawful acts. A pet on the property in breach of a Tenancy Agreement is not considered an unlawful act.
For this reason the claim is dismissed. Subletting
Tbt Property Management Limited claims the tenant has sublet or parted with possession of the premises without their prior written consent.
In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Landlord submitted the Tenant sub-let the property to the father of her children and her brother. The Landlord discovered that on at least three occasions when they attended the property, the children’s father was present. In the garage there was bedding and men’s clothing hanging up as if they lived in there. There was also an increase in the water bills. During one inspection, the children’s father said to a Property Manager words to the effect of: “Get out of my house”. The Landlord also said to the Tenant during an inspection on 24 July 2023 words to the effect of: “I hope you are not subletting the property”. The Tenant replied: “No, they’re just visiting”.
The Tenant submitted she was not sub-letting and the father of her children would stay over when she went to work so he could look after the children.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord did not provide sufficient proof that the Tenant was subletting to the father of her children or her brother. The Tenant may have been in breach of exceeding the specified number of residents in the property but the Landlord did not claim exemplary damages for this. There was also no proof that the Tenant received rent from the Tenant’s father as a sub- tenant. It is for the Landlord to provide this evidence to the Tribunal.
For these reasons, the claim is dismissed.
As the Landlord has not been substantially successful with their claims, name suppression is not granted to the Landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4666269. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 6 November 2023	$91.43	2. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, exemplary d…
Repairs: Replacement doors	$1,587.00	Repairs: Replacement doors
Repairs: Toilet seat cover	$143.75	Repairs: Toilet seat cover

Order

Name suppression has been sought however this has not been granted to the Landlord.
The tenancy of Kylie Marie Grace Finnerty at 69 Dundale Avenue, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600 is terminated, and possession is granted to Tbt Property Management Limited, at 12pm on 15 November 2023.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,822.18 (3304053-014) to Tbt Property Management Limited immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant attended the hearing in the last 15 minutes. The Tenant sent a message one hour before the hearing advising she would be half an hour late and the Tribunal waited for her. The Tribunal then commenced after that time.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, exemplary damages and refund of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to clean, failing to remove their dogs from the property, failing to repair the wall damage and failing to remove extensive rubbish on the exterior of the property.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 24 July 2023 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because cleaning, rubbish and repair issues were ongoing. The Landlord had requested the Tenants repeatedly to remove their dogs since May 2023 and the house smelt like urine. The repairs and cleaning were still not remedied after a 10-day notice was provided. There were further reminder notices provided to the Tenant on 11 August 2023 and 27 October 2023 however these were not all remedied at the date of the hearing.
The tenancy is terminated. Rent arrears and water rates arrears
The landlord has applied for rent arrears of $690.00 up to 6 November 2023. The Landlord claimed one weeks rent because the Tenant always paid on a Monday however the due date for rent was the prior Sunday. In perusing the rent summary, the Tribunal notes that rent was paid on Sunday 5 November 2023. The new rent week started on 6 November 2023 so only one day of rent has accrued since the end of the last rent cycle. The Tribunal can only order rent arrears up to the day of the hearing.
The amount ordered is proved.
The Landlord has applied for water rates arrears of $1408.61 however no Watercare invoices were received from the Landlord to substantiate the claim. The Landlord submitted at the hearing they had sent these to the Tribunal but nothing was filed so the Tribunal requested they send these during the hearing. This did not come through.
For this reason, the claim is dismissed.

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 damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to three doors, removal of the toilet seat cover, stains to carpet in bedroom 1 and damage to the walls.
The Landlord submitted replacement doors were required because there was a hole in the cupboard door of bedroom 1. There was also damage to bedroom 1 door where the Tenant attempted to repair these but failed to complete it properly. There was further damage to a door by the hallway. Photographs were provided of the damage, the ingoing inspection report showing there was no initial damage and an invoice to substantiate the cost.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The Landlord claimed the toilet seat cover was removed. An ingoing and mid- tenancy inspection report were provided to show the damage occurred during the tenancy. An invoice was also provided to substantiate the costs claimed.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The Landlord claimed the carpet in bedroom 1 required replacing because there was extensive staining. The ingoing inspection report showed there was no stains. The mid-tenancy inspection report showed there were a few stains in the bedroom however the bedroom was filled with the Tenants belongings so the amount of visible stains in the photographs provided did not justify why the carpet required replacing. The Landlord claimed the carpet smelt of dog urine. They also submitted they did not try to clean the stains because it was difficult to remove this. The carpet required replacing.
It is noted the inspection report dated on 9 August 2023 only referred to the carpet requiring cleaning.
In considering the evidence, the photographs showed only a few stains in the bedroom but not enough to warrant a whole replacement of the carpet. The Landlord did not make any attempts to clean it through a Professional cleaning service. Had they provided evidence from a Professional cleaning service that they could not remove the stains or provided photographs of the full extent of stain coverage or evidence from carpet specialists that they could not patch the stains, this would have been persuasive that the carpet required replacing.
For these reasons, the claim is dismissed.
The Landlord claimed for painting of the whole property due to the damages to the walls. A mid-tenancy inspection report was provided which showed some damages to the walls and an ingoing inspection report showed these were caused during the tenancy. An invoice was not provided to prove the painting would cost $3500.00.
For this reason, the claim is dismissed. Cleaning
The Landlord claimed cleaning of $1,500.00 however the tenancy had not ended. The Tenant should have an opportunity to vacate and clean before it can be assessed properly what requires cleaning.
For this reason, the claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages
The Landlord claimed for exemplary damages because the Tenant had two dogs on the property which the Landlord discovered upon inspection of the property in May 2023. The Landlord submitted they went to the property on at least two other occasions and saw the dogs there. There were dog bones on and dog faeces on the deck which made the Landlord believe the dogs lived there. The Landlord sent multiple letters to the Tenant requesting they remove the dogs.
The Tenant advised the Landlord that they were looking after the dogs that they belonged to their friends.
Exemplary damages are awarded for unlawful acts which are defined in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Not all breaches are unlawful acts. A pet on the property in breach of a Tenancy Agreement is not considered an unlawful act.
For this reason the claim is dismissed. Subletting
Tbt Property Management Limited claims the tenant has sublet or parted with possession of the premises without their prior written consent.
In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Landlord submitted the Tenant sub-let the property to the father of her children and her brother. The Landlord discovered that on at least three occasions when they attended the property, the children’s father was present. In the garage there was bedding and men’s clothing hanging up as if they lived in there. There was also an increase in the water bills. During one inspection, the children’s father said to a Property Manager words to the effect of: “Get out of my house”. The Landlord also said to the Tenant during an inspection on 24 July 2023 words to the effect of: “I hope you are not subletting the property”. The Tenant replied: “No, they’re just visiting”.
The Tenant submitted she was not sub-letting and the father of her children would stay over when she went to work so he could look after the children.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord did not provide sufficient proof that the Tenant was subletting to the father of her children or her brother. The Tenant may have been in breach of exceeding the specified number of residents in the property but the Landlord did not claim exemplary damages for this. There was also no proof that the Tenant received rent from the Tenant’s father as a sub- tenant. It is for the Landlord to provide this evidence to the Tribunal.
For these reasons, the claim is dismissed.
As the Landlord has not been substantially successful with their claims, name suppression is not granted to the Landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4666269 — Property damage at 69 Dundale Avenue, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4666269 — Property damage at 69 Dundale Avenue, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions