What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4700790?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Kziah Anahera Wairama, Isabell Orangi and Hinetaapora Short at

How much money was awarded in case 4700790?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $107.77 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4700790?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4700790?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9584866-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4700790?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Kziah Anahera Wairama, Isabell Orangi and Hinetaapora Short at

How much money was awarded in case 4700790?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $107.77 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4700790?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4700790?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9584866-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

73 Te Kio Crescent, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4700790 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4700790 — net $1,328.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet damage (Insurance Excess	$1,200.00	Carpet damage (Insurance Excess
Water rates	$107.77	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,328.21
Bond	$1,328.21
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,328.21

Order

The tenancy of Kziah Anahera Wairama, Isabell Orangi and Hinetaapora Short at 73 Te Kio Crescent, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118 is terminated, and possession is granted to Advantage Realty Limited As Agent For Naveed And Uzra Balouch, at 5.00pm on Thursday 30 November 2023.
Kziah Anahera Wairama, Isabell Orangi and Hinetaapora Short to pay Advantage Realty Limited As Agent For Naveed And Uzra Balouch $1,328.21 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay $1,328.21 from the bond of $3,000.00 to Advantage Realty Limited As Agent for Naveed and Uzra Balouch immediately as shown in table below.
The balance of the bond of $1,671.79 is to remain at the Bond Centre pending the final inspection.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
Ms Wairama (tenant) sent an email to the Tribunal 24 minutes before the scheduled hearing time indicating that she thought the hearing was by teleconference, and she was on her way to Auckland. Ms Wairama was called 3 times to attend the hearing by teleconference, but the calls went directly to voicemail. The absence of a party does not prevent the hearing from proceeding. The other tenants did not appear.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water rates, compensation, and refund of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy where: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice advising the tenant of the arrear, the dates for which rent was overdue, the amount or amounts of overdue rent, and the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice; and c. each notice stated how many other notices (if any) the landlord had given the tenant under this paragraph in relation to the same tenancy and 90-day period; and d. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice. See section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this case I find the landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. This application to the Tribunal was filed on 2 October 2023 which was within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
The grounds have been established and the tenancy must be terminated. Although rent is in credit today as a payment was made yesterday, it will be in arrears again tomorrow without further payment. The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under this section, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied, the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies. The landlord has provided a rent summary which shows a history of inconsistent payments and arrears since 24 July 2023. Ms Wairama has told the landlord she cannot afford to pay the current rent. I am therefore unable to find it unlikely that no further breaches of this kind will be made.
The landlord has requested that the tenancy end in one month to give the tenant fair opportunity to find alternative accommodation, so I make an order accordingly.
The landlord has also applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
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 not paying water rates as and when they fall due and not paying for an insurance excess of $1200.00 for damage to the lounge/dining carpet.
The landlord served two 14-day notices on the tenant on 26 September 2023 and 2 October 2023, and the tenant did not remedy the breach(es) within the required period. The issue of liability for the carpet excess is dealt with below.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because of the nature and extent of the breaches. The tenant has made no effort to make any payments towards the breaches. The invoice for the carpet excess has been outstanding since 4 September and water rates have not been paid since the invoice issued on 10 August 2023.
The tenancy is also terminated on these grounds.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing.
I make an order for $107.77 water rates as claimed.

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: extensive carpet staining in the lounge/dining which cannot be removed by cleaning. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The insurance excess of $1,200.00 is proved. I have taken into account some pre- existing minor stains in the dining room, betterment and depreciation.
Because Advantage Realty Limited As Agent For Naveed And Uzra Balouch has succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4700790 — net $1,328.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet damage (Insurance Excess	$1,200.00	Carpet damage (Insurance Excess
Water rates	$107.77	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,328.21
Bond	$1,328.21
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,328.21

Order

The tenancy of Kziah Anahera Wairama, Isabell Orangi and Hinetaapora Short at 73 Te Kio Crescent, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118 is terminated, and possession is granted to Advantage Realty Limited As Agent For Naveed And Uzra Balouch, at 5.00pm on Thursday 30 November 2023.
Kziah Anahera Wairama, Isabell Orangi and Hinetaapora Short to pay Advantage Realty Limited As Agent For Naveed And Uzra Balouch $1,328.21 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay $1,328.21 from the bond of $3,000.00 to Advantage Realty Limited As Agent for Naveed and Uzra Balouch immediately as shown in table below.
The balance of the bond of $1,671.79 is to remain at the Bond Centre pending the final inspection.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
Ms Wairama (tenant) sent an email to the Tribunal 24 minutes before the scheduled hearing time indicating that she thought the hearing was by teleconference, and she was on her way to Auckland. Ms Wairama was called 3 times to attend the hearing by teleconference, but the calls went directly to voicemail. The absence of a party does not prevent the hearing from proceeding. The other tenants did not appear.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water rates, compensation, and refund of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy where: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice advising the tenant of the arrear, the dates for which rent was overdue, the amount or amounts of overdue rent, and the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice; and c. each notice stated how many other notices (if any) the landlord had given the tenant under this paragraph in relation to the same tenancy and 90-day period; and d. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice. See section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this case I find the landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. This application to the Tribunal was filed on 2 October 2023 which was within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
The grounds have been established and the tenancy must be terminated. Although rent is in credit today as a payment was made yesterday, it will be in arrears again tomorrow without further payment. The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under this section, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied, the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies. The landlord has provided a rent summary which shows a history of inconsistent payments and arrears since 24 July 2023. Ms Wairama has told the landlord she cannot afford to pay the current rent. I am therefore unable to find it unlikely that no further breaches of this kind will be made.
The landlord has requested that the tenancy end in one month to give the tenant fair opportunity to find alternative accommodation, so I make an order accordingly.
The landlord has also applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
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 not paying water rates as and when they fall due and not paying for an insurance excess of $1200.00 for damage to the lounge/dining carpet.
The landlord served two 14-day notices on the tenant on 26 September 2023 and 2 October 2023, and the tenant did not remedy the breach(es) within the required period. The issue of liability for the carpet excess is dealt with below.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because of the nature and extent of the breaches. The tenant has made no effort to make any payments towards the breaches. The invoice for the carpet excess has been outstanding since 4 September and water rates have not been paid since the invoice issued on 10 August 2023.
The tenancy is also terminated on these grounds.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing.
I make an order for $107.77 water rates as claimed.

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: extensive carpet staining in the lounge/dining which cannot be removed by cleaning. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The insurance excess of $1,200.00 is proved. I have taken into account some pre- existing minor stains in the dining room, betterment and depreciation.
Because Advantage Realty Limited As Agent For Naveed And Uzra Balouch has succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4700790 — Property damage at 73 Te Kio Crescent, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4700790 — Property damage at 73 Te Kio Crescent, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions