What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4693490?

The tribunal order states: Rewhia King and Pita King must pay Derek Lim $6,212.02 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4693490?

Cleaning: $632.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $537.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $24.28 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,292.85 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls & Doors: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Window Locks: $62.28 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $42.67 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4693490?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4693490?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10093941-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4693490?

The tribunal order states: Rewhia King and Pita King must pay Derek Lim $6,212.02 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4693490?

Cleaning: $632.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $537.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $24.28 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,292.85 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls & Doors: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Window Locks: $62.28 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $42.67 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4693490?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4693490?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10093941-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

31 Cortina Avenue, Johnsonville, Wellington 6037 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4693490 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

31 Cortina Avenue, Johnsonville, Wellington 6037 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4693490 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4693490 — net $6,212.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 October 2023	$6,292.85		Rent arrears to 24 October 2023
Cleaning	$632.50		Cleaning
Lawns, garden work & disposal of goods and rubbish	$537.00		Lawns, garden work & disposal of goods and rubbish
Lock/key replacement	$24.28		Lock/key replacement
Replace smoke alarms	$42.67		Replace smoke alarms
Replace missing window locks	$62.28		Replace missing window locks
Repairs: Holes in walls & doors	$2,000.00		Repairs: Holes in walls & doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond received		$3,400.00	Bond received
Total award	$9,612.02	$3,400.00
Net award	$6,212.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,212.02

Claims and awards for application 4693490 — net $6,212.02 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 24 October 2023

Amount: $6,292.85
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 24 October 2023

Cleaning

Amount: $632.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lawns, garden work & disposal of goods and rubbish

Amount: $537.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns, garden work & disposal of goods and rubbish

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $24.28
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Replace smoke alarms

Amount: $42.67
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace smoke alarms

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

Rewhia King and Pita King must pay Derek Lim $6,212.02 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord may dispose of the goods left at the premises by the tenants (which does not include any personal documents) as the landlord sees fit.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no attendance by the tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 24 October 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. In a previous mediation, the parties agreed that the bond be refunded to the landlord which is accounted for in the above orders.

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 (RTA).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all belongings and rubbish.
The tenant did not return all the keys.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: two smoke alarms and some window locks.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord has also applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has contacted the tenant multiple times to ask them to remove the items or authorise him to dispose of them. The tenants have failed to respond and failed to collect the goods.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. The value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. Therefore the landlord may dispose of the goods. The landlord may also recover $100 from the tenants towards the disposal costs which I consider is justified. The amount has been included in the disposal costs detailed in the above orders. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) RTA.

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 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: Multiple holes that appear to have been punched into walls and doors throughout the house. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which I find was likely intentional. The tenants attempted to patch repair some of the damage but I am satisfied the work was not to a reasonable standard and had to be remediated.
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.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4693490 — net $6,212.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 October 2023	$6,292.85		Rent arrears to 24 October 2023
Cleaning	$632.50		Cleaning
Lawns, garden work & disposal of goods and rubbish	$537.00		Lawns, garden work & disposal of goods and rubbish
Lock/key replacement	$24.28		Lock/key replacement
Replace smoke alarms	$42.67		Replace smoke alarms
Replace missing window locks	$62.28		Replace missing window locks
Repairs: Holes in walls & doors	$2,000.00		Repairs: Holes in walls & doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond received		$3,400.00	Bond received
Total award	$9,612.02	$3,400.00
Net award	$6,212.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,212.02

Claims and awards for application 4693490 — net $6,212.02 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 24 October 2023

Amount: $6,292.85
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 24 October 2023

Cleaning

Amount: $632.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lawns, garden work & disposal of goods and rubbish

Amount: $537.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns, garden work & disposal of goods and rubbish

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $24.28
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Replace smoke alarms

Amount: $42.67
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace smoke alarms

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

Rewhia King and Pita King must pay Derek Lim $6,212.02 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord may dispose of the goods left at the premises by the tenants (which does not include any personal documents) as the landlord sees fit.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no attendance by the tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 24 October 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. In a previous mediation, the parties agreed that the bond be refunded to the landlord which is accounted for in the above orders.

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 (RTA).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all belongings and rubbish.
The tenant did not return all the keys.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: two smoke alarms and some window locks.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord has also applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has contacted the tenant multiple times to ask them to remove the items or authorise him to dispose of them. The tenants have failed to respond and failed to collect the goods.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. The value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. Therefore the landlord may dispose of the goods. The landlord may also recover $100 from the tenants towards the disposal costs which I consider is justified. The amount has been included in the disposal costs detailed in the above orders. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) RTA.

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 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: Multiple holes that appear to have been punched into walls and doors throughout the house. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which I find was likely intentional. The tenants attempted to patch repair some of the damage but I am satisfied the work was not to a reasonable standard and had to be remediated.
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.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4693490 — Rent arrears at 31 Cortina Avenue, Johnsonville, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4693490 — Rent arrears at 31 Cortina Avenue, Johnsonville, Wellington 6037

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions