How much money was awarded in case 4731389?

Cost Of Removing Tenant’S Goods: $338.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,542.89 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4731389?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4731389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10158245-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4731389?

Cost Of Removing Tenant’S Goods: $338.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,542.89 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4731389?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4731389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10158245-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

39 King Edward Parade, Devonport, Auckland 0624, 37-39A Tenancy Tribunal Case 4731389 — Rent arrears

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4731389?

The tribunal order states: Carole Elizabeth Tanner must pay Margaret Ann Lees and Wayne Richard Lloyd

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4731389. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 2/07 – 24/08/2023	$4,542.89	Rent arrears 2/07 – 24/08/2023
Cost of removing tenant’s goods	$338.00	Cost of removing tenant’s goods
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

Carole Elizabeth Tanner must pay Margaret Ann Lees and Wayne Richard Lloyd Lees $4,901.33 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears 2/07 – 24/08/2023$4,542.89 Cost of removing tenant’s goods$338.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$4,901.33

Reasons

The landlords attended the hearing in person. The tenant, who has moved out of Auckland, attended by telephone for another city.
The landlords apply for rent arrears, compensation for costs, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy was terminated by a Tribunal order on 8 August 2023, although the parties did not receive the order until 10 August 2023.
The tenant remained in the premises after the termination order and was evicted from the premises on 25 August 2023. 1
Under s 60(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated or has been terminated, all the obligations of the tenant shall continue in force as if the tenancy were still subsisting until such time as the tenant ceases to occupy the premises. That being so, the tenant must pay rent for the entire period she remained in the premises even though the tenancy was terminated before she left.
The landlords provided a rent summary showing the tenant’s rent arrears.
The tenant is not required to pay rent for 25 August 2023 because she did not occupy the premises for that day.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must on the termination of the tenancy, quit the premises, 2 remove all their goods from the premises, leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 3
The tenant did not remove all her goods from the premises. The landlords claim for the cost of Junk Genius removing items that they could not otherwise dispose of. Some items had a modest market value, but the landlords did not have the time and energy to clean and tidy them and try to sell them. 1 The landlords have not sought reimbursement for the cost of the eviction. 2 Failing to quit the premises is an unlawful act for which the landlords could have claimed exemplary damages. The landlords have not claimed exemplary damages in this case. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 40(1)(e)(i)-(v).
The tenant had still not removed a lot of her belongings by 1 October 2023, which was about eight weeks after the termination of the tenancy, and more than 35 days after the landlords had taken possession of the premises, and consequently, the goods the tenant left behind.
The landlords arranged for a Charity to take away some of the goods on 1 October 2023.
The landlords then incurred a cost of $676.00 to finally have Junk Genius remove the remaining goods on 3 October 2023. 4
The landlords assessed that some of the tenant’s items had a market value of about $500.00. If they had proceeded to sell these items, they would have incurred costs for storage, possible transport, and the value of their own time.
The exact figures for market value, storage, transport, and time cannot be given, but there is enough information available to the Tribunal for it to make a fair and pragmatic assessment. 5
I assess the market value less costs at 50 per cent of the Junk Genius invoice for disposing of the goods, namely, $338.00.

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.
The landlords claim for their insurance excess related, in part, to replacing vinyl flooring they say the tenant damaged.
The landlords did not provide the Tribunal with photographs of the vinyl flooring prior to the tenancy beginning so there was no objective evidence of the vinyl floors upon which to compare the end-of-tenancy damage.
Also, even if damage beyond fair wear and tear were proven, betterment and depreciation would have to be factored into any award. Landlords 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 this case the vinyl was likely about 10 years old and therefore fully depreciated. 5 Under RTA, s 85 the Tribunal is to decide cases to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes and having regard to the substantial merits and justice of the case.
For these reasons, the claim for compensation for damage to the vinyl flooring is dismissed. Filing fee
Because the landlords have substantially succeeded with their claim, the Tribunal orders the tenant to reimburse them for the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4731389. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 2/07 – 24/08/2023	$4,542.89	Rent arrears 2/07 – 24/08/2023
Cost of removing tenant’s goods	$338.00	Cost of removing tenant’s goods
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

Reasons

The landlords attended the hearing in person. The tenant, who has moved out of Auckland, attended by telephone for another city.
The landlords apply for rent arrears, compensation for costs, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy was terminated by a Tribunal order on 8 August 2023, although the parties did not receive the order until 10 August 2023.
The tenant remained in the premises after the termination order and was evicted from the premises on 25 August 2023. 1
Under s 60(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated or has been terminated, all the obligations of the tenant shall continue in force as if the tenancy were still subsisting until such time as the tenant ceases to occupy the premises. That being so, the tenant must pay rent for the entire period she remained in the premises even though the tenancy was terminated before she left.
The landlords provided a rent summary showing the tenant’s rent arrears.
The tenant is not required to pay rent for 25 August 2023 because she did not occupy the premises for that day.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must on the termination of the tenancy, quit the premises, 2 remove all their goods from the premises, leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 3
The tenant did not remove all her goods from the premises. The landlords claim for the cost of Junk Genius removing items that they could not otherwise dispose of. Some items had a modest market value, but the landlords did not have the time and energy to clean and tidy them and try to sell them. 1 The landlords have not sought reimbursement for the cost of the eviction. 2 Failing to quit the premises is an unlawful act for which the landlords could have claimed exemplary damages. The landlords have not claimed exemplary damages in this case. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 40(1)(e)(i)-(v).
The tenant had still not removed a lot of her belongings by 1 October 2023, which was about eight weeks after the termination of the tenancy, and more than 35 days after the landlords had taken possession of the premises, and consequently, the goods the tenant left behind.
The landlords arranged for a Charity to take away some of the goods on 1 October 2023.
The landlords then incurred a cost of $676.00 to finally have Junk Genius remove the remaining goods on 3 October 2023. 4
The landlords assessed that some of the tenant’s items had a market value of about $500.00. If they had proceeded to sell these items, they would have incurred costs for storage, possible transport, and the value of their own time.
The exact figures for market value, storage, transport, and time cannot be given, but there is enough information available to the Tribunal for it to make a fair and pragmatic assessment. 5
I assess the market value less costs at 50 per cent of the Junk Genius invoice for disposing of the goods, namely, $338.00.

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.
The landlords claim for their insurance excess related, in part, to replacing vinyl flooring they say the tenant damaged.
The landlords did not provide the Tribunal with photographs of the vinyl flooring prior to the tenancy beginning so there was no objective evidence of the vinyl floors upon which to compare the end-of-tenancy damage.
Also, even if damage beyond fair wear and tear were proven, betterment and depreciation would have to be factored into any award. Landlords 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 this case the vinyl was likely about 10 years old and therefore fully depreciated. 5 Under RTA, s 85 the Tribunal is to decide cases to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes and having regard to the substantial merits and justice of the case.
For these reasons, the claim for compensation for damage to the vinyl flooring is dismissed. Filing fee
Because the landlords have substantially succeeded with their claim, the Tribunal orders the tenant to reimburse them for the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4731389 — Rent arrears at 39 King Edward Parade, Devonport, Auckland 0624, 37-39A

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4731389 — Rent arrears at 39 King Edward Parade, Devonport, Auckland 0624, 37-39A

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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