What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4715509?

The tribunal order states: Francis Rauf, Lutita Kapeli and Mikaele Kapeli must pay McDonald Property

How much money was awarded in case 4715509?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4715509?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4715509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10106101-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4715509?

The tribunal order states: Francis Rauf, Lutita Kapeli and Mikaele Kapeli must pay McDonald Property

How much money was awarded in case 4715509?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4715509?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4715509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10106101-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 McDivitt Street, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4715509 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The applicant landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance of the tenants.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord has already received the bond refund and this has been applied to reduce the debt ordered today.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 19 September 2023 following notice to terminate being given by the tenants. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenants 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 tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The amounts ordered are proved. Photographs and invoices were provided.

The landlord has withdrawn the claim for reimbursement of lawnmowing costs as insufficient evidence was available.

Are the tenants liable 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 tenants 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.

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: Holes in walls in bedrooms, kitchen and back door area. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. Having considered the evidence including the photographs and email communication I find that the damage was intentionally caused.

The amounts ordered are proved. Invoices have been provided.

Because McDonald Property Management Limited as Agent For Shao Hua Wu has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Reasons

The applicant landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance of the tenants.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 19 September 2023 following notice to terminate being given by the tenants. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The amounts ordered are proved. Photographs and invoices were provided.

The landlord has withdrawn the claim for reimbursement of lawnmowing costs as insufficient evidence was available.

Are the tenants liable for the damage to the premises?

The amounts ordered are proved. Invoices have been provided.

Because McDonald Property Management Limited as Agent For Shao Hua Wu has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4715509 — Rent arrears at 11 McDivitt Street, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

Tenancy Tribunal case 4715509 — Rent arrears at 11 McDivitt Street, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants liable for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants liable for the damage to the premises?

Property management