What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4700203?

The tribunal order states: Rileshni Rangita Kumari and Bal Reddy must pay Jamaliyeh Drake $3,161.53

How much money was awarded in case 4700203?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Water Charges To End Of Tenancy: $81.09 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4700203?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4700203?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9870978-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4700203?

The tribunal order states: Rileshni Rangita Kumari and Bal Reddy must pay Jamaliyeh Drake $3,161.53

How much money was awarded in case 4700203?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Water Charges To End Of Tenancy: $81.09 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4700203?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4700203?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9870978-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 6, 88 Tui Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4700203 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4700203 — net $3,161.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,000.00	Rent arrears
Rubbish removal	$900.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs to walls	$280.00	Repairs to walls
Water charges to end of tenancy	$81.09	Water charges to end of tenancy
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,161.53
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,161.53

Order

Rileshni Rangita Kumari and Bal Reddy must pay Jamaliyeh Drake $3,161.53 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 23 January 2014.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The first-named tenant lived at the property from 27 August 2010. He subsequently lived there with the second-named tenant. The tenancy continued after the landlord purchased the property in July 2012.
On 16 August 2022 the landlord served a 90-day notice of termination on the basis that the property needed “major renovation”. The notice terminated the tenancy from 17 November 2022. This end date was subsequently extended when, according to the landlord, the tenants asked for more time.
In November 2022, the parties agreed to a 1-year fixed term tenancy from 8 November 2022 to 6 November 2023. The terms were set out in an email from the landlord. No corresponding tenancy agreement has been provided.
The parties subsequently signed a tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 28 April 2023 to 21 September 2023. This agreement stated that it replaced a fixed term tenancy agreement dated 18 November 2022, and that this was now a fixed term contract expiring on 21 September 2023, with no possibility of extension. There was reference to extensive renovations once the tenants vacated. The property inspection report page was not completed.
In July 2023 the tenants said they were moving out early. The email correspondence suggests the tenants had seen a new house that they had agreed to rent. The landlord responded that the tenants were subject to a fixed term agreement, and the builders had previously been cancelled and rebooked for September 2023.
The landlord says the keys were handed back on 20 August 2023.

How much is owed for rent and water?

The last rent was paid on 3 August 2023 for the rent period to 10 August 2023. The landlord claims rent in the sum of $3,000.00 for 6 weeks from 11 August 2023 to 21 September 2023 (the end of the fixed term).
The tenants said the landlord agreed to waive the rent when they handed back the keys. The landlord says she agreed to waive the rent due for the remaining term if the tenants tidied up the section, which did not happen.
The tenants had signed a fixed term tenancy and therefore, when they stopped paying rent on 3 August 2023, they were in breach of the tenancy agreement. They were contractually liable for the rent to the end of the fixed term.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenants’ early departure meant it was not realistic to rent the property out for the remaining 6 weeks. Perhaps the landlord could have attempted to advertise the property as a short-term rental, but I am not satisfied that the landlord unreasonably failed to mitigate her loss. The builders had been scheduled to begin after expiry of the fixed term and were unavailable, so the work could not be brought forward.
I am not satisfied that the return of the keys on 20 August 2023 meant the landlord accepted a surrender of the tenancy, given the landlord’s position in correspondence that the tenants could not leave before expiry of the fixed term. I award the rent as claimed to 21 September 2023.
The landlord claimed $81.09 for water charges, supported by an invoice for water use to 23 August 2023, when an actual reading was taken. The tenants said they had paid the invoice but offered no evidence of payment. The landlord said she paid the bill. The tenants noted that the water usage was nil when a final reading was taken at the end of the tenancy. This is likely because the tenants moved out when the keys were returned so that, from 20 August 2023, no water was being used. I award the amount claimed for water.
The landlord claimed $900.00 for rubbish removal. The invoice for rubbish removal costs does not mention charges for tidying the gardens, but my impression from the evidence was that it included the cost of doing so. The landlord’s photographs show rubbish strewn about the yard and a very overgrown garden. The tenants said this reflected the condition of the tenancy at the start of their tenancy but accepted that the rubbish was theirs. Neither party had any photographs showing the condition of the property at any earlier time. I consider it unlikely that the rubbish could have accumulated without the gardens also becoming overgrown. The tenancy agreement in 2010 made it the tenants’ responsibility to keep the garden tidy. I award the amount claimed for rubbish removal and tidying the section.

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.
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 4 weeks' rent. The excess in the tenancy agreement was $2,000.00.
The landlord claimed $420.00 for patching holes on the walls. The landlord provided photographs showing writing on walls and doors and holes in the laundry wall and the bedroom door and wall. The tenants said the damage was present from the start and the landlords had done little maintenance. They said some of the damage was caused by contractors installing insulation in 2019. The landlord said they changed the carpet and did some painting in 2012.
The earlier condition of the property requires some speculation. The tenancy agreement dated 23 August 2010 included an inspection report signed by the tenant (but not the landlord) on 27 August 2010. This identified the walls and doors in “fair” condition in the lounge, kitchen, and bedrooms 2 and 3. There was reference to mould on the walls of the bathroom, a hole in the ceiling in the laundry, and the walls and doors in bedroom 1 were described as “damaged ripped”.
It is unlikely that insulation contractors caused the damage, as there is no obvious reason why their work would damage a door or a wall. The tenants provided a few photographs, but these were undated and do not show the condition of the walls and doors. An email from the tenants dated 15 August 2022 refers to leaking taps, kitchen, and bathroom cupboards “falling apart”, and said the house was mouldy and cold. There was no complaint about holes in the walls or doors.
However overall, I find that the landlord has not established that the holes in the laundry and bedroom doors and wall were damaged during the tenancy. The lack of inspections and photographs mean the Tribunal must guess whether the damage was caused by the tenants. It might have been, but there was some damage to the walls in 2010. It is unclear exactly what repairs were performed in 2012: the tenant suggested the painting extended only to the living room ceiling. I am unable to find on the balance of probabilities that this damage was caused during the tenancy.
I find it is likely that the writing on the walls occurred during the tenancy. I understood children were living there, and there is no mention of writing on the walls in the inspection report. The walls had to be cleaned so they could be painted. This has been itemised in the invoice at $280.00. I award this amount. Filing fee
The landlord’s application has largely succeeded. I award the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4700203 — net $3,161.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,000.00	Rent arrears
Rubbish removal	$900.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs to walls	$280.00	Repairs to walls
Water charges to end of tenancy	$81.09	Water charges to end of tenancy
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,161.53
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,161.53

Order

Rileshni Rangita Kumari and Bal Reddy must pay Jamaliyeh Drake $3,161.53 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 23 January 2014.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The first-named tenant lived at the property from 27 August 2010. He subsequently lived there with the second-named tenant. The tenancy continued after the landlord purchased the property in July 2012.
On 16 August 2022 the landlord served a 90-day notice of termination on the basis that the property needed “major renovation”. The notice terminated the tenancy from 17 November 2022. This end date was subsequently extended when, according to the landlord, the tenants asked for more time.
In November 2022, the parties agreed to a 1-year fixed term tenancy from 8 November 2022 to 6 November 2023. The terms were set out in an email from the landlord. No corresponding tenancy agreement has been provided.
The parties subsequently signed a tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 28 April 2023 to 21 September 2023. This agreement stated that it replaced a fixed term tenancy agreement dated 18 November 2022, and that this was now a fixed term contract expiring on 21 September 2023, with no possibility of extension. There was reference to extensive renovations once the tenants vacated. The property inspection report page was not completed.
In July 2023 the tenants said they were moving out early. The email correspondence suggests the tenants had seen a new house that they had agreed to rent. The landlord responded that the tenants were subject to a fixed term agreement, and the builders had previously been cancelled and rebooked for September 2023.
The landlord says the keys were handed back on 20 August 2023.

How much is owed for rent and water?

The last rent was paid on 3 August 2023 for the rent period to 10 August 2023. The landlord claims rent in the sum of $3,000.00 for 6 weeks from 11 August 2023 to 21 September 2023 (the end of the fixed term).
The tenants said the landlord agreed to waive the rent when they handed back the keys. The landlord says she agreed to waive the rent due for the remaining term if the tenants tidied up the section, which did not happen.
The tenants had signed a fixed term tenancy and therefore, when they stopped paying rent on 3 August 2023, they were in breach of the tenancy agreement. They were contractually liable for the rent to the end of the fixed term.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenants’ early departure meant it was not realistic to rent the property out for the remaining 6 weeks. Perhaps the landlord could have attempted to advertise the property as a short-term rental, but I am not satisfied that the landlord unreasonably failed to mitigate her loss. The builders had been scheduled to begin after expiry of the fixed term and were unavailable, so the work could not be brought forward.
I am not satisfied that the return of the keys on 20 August 2023 meant the landlord accepted a surrender of the tenancy, given the landlord’s position in correspondence that the tenants could not leave before expiry of the fixed term. I award the rent as claimed to 21 September 2023.
The landlord claimed $81.09 for water charges, supported by an invoice for water use to 23 August 2023, when an actual reading was taken. The tenants said they had paid the invoice but offered no evidence of payment. The landlord said she paid the bill. The tenants noted that the water usage was nil when a final reading was taken at the end of the tenancy. This is likely because the tenants moved out when the keys were returned so that, from 20 August 2023, no water was being used. I award the amount claimed for water.
The landlord claimed $900.00 for rubbish removal. The invoice for rubbish removal costs does not mention charges for tidying the gardens, but my impression from the evidence was that it included the cost of doing so. The landlord’s photographs show rubbish strewn about the yard and a very overgrown garden. The tenants said this reflected the condition of the tenancy at the start of their tenancy but accepted that the rubbish was theirs. Neither party had any photographs showing the condition of the property at any earlier time. I consider it unlikely that the rubbish could have accumulated without the gardens also becoming overgrown. The tenancy agreement in 2010 made it the tenants’ responsibility to keep the garden tidy. I award the amount claimed for rubbish removal and tidying the section.

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.
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 4 weeks' rent. The excess in the tenancy agreement was $2,000.00.
The landlord claimed $420.00 for patching holes on the walls. The landlord provided photographs showing writing on walls and doors and holes in the laundry wall and the bedroom door and wall. The tenants said the damage was present from the start and the landlords had done little maintenance. They said some of the damage was caused by contractors installing insulation in 2019. The landlord said they changed the carpet and did some painting in 2012.
The earlier condition of the property requires some speculation. The tenancy agreement dated 23 August 2010 included an inspection report signed by the tenant (but not the landlord) on 27 August 2010. This identified the walls and doors in “fair” condition in the lounge, kitchen, and bedrooms 2 and 3. There was reference to mould on the walls of the bathroom, a hole in the ceiling in the laundry, and the walls and doors in bedroom 1 were described as “damaged ripped”.
It is unlikely that insulation contractors caused the damage, as there is no obvious reason why their work would damage a door or a wall. The tenants provided a few photographs, but these were undated and do not show the condition of the walls and doors. An email from the tenants dated 15 August 2022 refers to leaking taps, kitchen, and bathroom cupboards “falling apart”, and said the house was mouldy and cold. There was no complaint about holes in the walls or doors.
However overall, I find that the landlord has not established that the holes in the laundry and bedroom doors and wall were damaged during the tenancy. The lack of inspections and photographs mean the Tribunal must guess whether the damage was caused by the tenants. It might have been, but there was some damage to the walls in 2010. It is unclear exactly what repairs were performed in 2012: the tenant suggested the painting extended only to the living room ceiling. I am unable to find on the balance of probabilities that this damage was caused during the tenancy.
I find it is likely that the writing on the walls occurred during the tenancy. I understood children were living there, and there is no mention of writing on the walls in the inspection report. The walls had to be cleaned so they could be painted. This has been itemised in the invoice at $280.00. I award this amount. Filing fee
The landlord’s application has largely succeeded. I award the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4700203 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 6, 88 Tui Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4700203 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 6, 88 Tui Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water?

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 and water?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions