What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4761178 about?

The tribunal order states: Dianne Ruth Gould must pay [The landlord/s] $12,168.61 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4761178?

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 4761178?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4761178?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10019955-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4761178 about?

The tribunal order states: Dianne Ruth Gould must pay [The landlord/s] $12,168.61 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4761178?

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 4761178?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4761178?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10019955-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4761178 — Rent arrears

Order

Dianne Ruth Gould must pay [The landlord/s] $12,168.61 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
00
79 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$12,168.61 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$12,168.61
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 5 April 2023 under application 4518914.
The notice of hearing is to be treated as served on the tenant on 31 January 2024 when it was hand delivered to an address where the tenant now lives.
The landlord’s claims for replacement curtains, meth testing kits and other sundry items are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlords attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for further rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
An order was made in this matter on 22 January 2024 directing that further service be attempted as section 91A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) applies.
The landlord provided evidence to the Tribunal to confirm the various attempts made to ensure that the Notice of Hearing was brought to the attention of the tenant.
These efforts included: hand delivery to the address where the landlord reasonably believes that tenant now lives; contact through Facebook and an email address that has been used to contact the tenant in the past.
The Tribunal considers that these efforts have brought or are likely to have brought the notice to the tenant’s attention under section 91B(2)(b) of the Act.

How much is owed for rent?

A previous order of the Tribunal (4518914) ordered the tenancy be terminated on 5 April 2023. The tenant was ordered to pay the landlord $6,140.00.
The tenant did not vacate the tenancy address and no further amounts were paid by the tenant to the landlord.
The tenancy eventually ended on 4 June 2023 when the landlord arranged removal of the tenant’s property from the premises and into storage in the garage (also on the premises).
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing from 6 April 2023 to 4 June 2023, being $2,982.86.
The landlord stored the tenant’s items in the garage on the premises from 4 June 2023 to 18 September 2023 when the tenant provided an alternative storage location. The cost to rent this garage is assessed by the landlord as $25.00 per week for 15 weeks being $375.00.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided invoices, photographs, and video evidence to support their claim for cleaning and rubbish removal following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord allowed the tenant to take extra time to move out from the property. They accepted delays based on Covid and various other excuses but eventually came to the realisation that the tenant was not planning to remove her property from the premises herself.
The landlord had a prospective new tenant who was being delayed and was increasingly keen to move into the property. This tenant agreed to remove Ms Gould’s remaining possessions to the garage and to complete the cleaning of the house in return for two weeks free rent. This amounted to $800.00 at the new rent level.
Evidence of this arrangement and of the possessions to be removed, tidying and cleaning required was provided to the Tribunal. Given that the house was full of unpacked belongings and had not been cleaned for at least two months while the tenant was in the process of moving, the Tribunal considers this amount reasonable.
The garden had not been maintained for some months and there was considerable rubbish in and around the house. Invoices for gardening costs of $488.75 and rubbish removal (skip bin hire) of $408.00 were provided.
The carpets had not been cleaned and there were stains visible in the videos proving the amount claimed for the hire of a rug doctor of $68.59.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord had to get all locks changed at a cost of $512.57.
When the tenant obtained a storage unit, the landlord arranged for her furniture to be delivered to that unit by means of a hired trailer at a cost of $65.00.
The landlord has claimed $45.79 for milage for removal of tenant’s belongings to storage and rubbish removal.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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 under section 49B(1) of the Act.
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 (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: A boundary fence was badly damaged by a person at the premises with the tenant’s permission and had to be replaced at a cost of $225.00 (for a one-half share).
A dent to a wall had to be repaired with a wall patch at a cost of $12.98.
The front door seal had been removed or destroyed and was replaced at a cost of $23.19.
This damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord’s claim for replacement curtains, meth testing kits and other sundry items are dismissed as not having been proven to flow directly from a tenant breach. Filing fee
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4761178 — Rent arrears

Tenancy Tribunal case 4761178 — Rent arrears

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?

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?