What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4795577?

The tribunal order states: Rikki-lee Hope Dodunski must pay Advantage Realty Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4795577?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $350.60 awarded to landlord; Ceramic Hob: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $168.24 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4795577?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4795577?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10224984-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4795577?

The tribunal order states: Rikki-lee Hope Dodunski must pay Advantage Realty Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4795577?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $350.60 awarded to landlord; Ceramic Hob: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $168.24 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4795577?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4795577?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10224984-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 51 Turret Road, Tauranga South, Tauranga Tenancy Tribunal Case 4795577 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4795577 — net $769.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$350.60	Rent arrears
Water rates	$168.24	Water rates
Repairs: Ceramic hob	$230.00	Repairs: Ceramic hob
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$769.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$769.28

Order

Rikki-lee Hope Dodunski must pay Advantage Realty Limited As Agent For Prakash Singh $769.28 immediately out of bond money held, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord must refund the remaining bond money back to the tenant without delay.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by remote teleconference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 30 November 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted, and discussed this evidence with the landlord I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for these debts.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Rubbish removal:
The landlord provided exit photographs taken on 29 November 2023. The tenant’s last day at the tenancy address was 30 November 2023. She was also being charged rent up until 30 November. The landlord turned up the day before on the basis that she believed the tenant had already vacated. The tenant stated that she planned to return on the 30 th to remove all rubbish.
The tenant was being charged rent up to and including 30 November 2023. She is entitled to full use of the premises up to and including that day. I accept her explanation that she intended returning to remove her belongings. The landlord has attended one day early and now claims that the tenant failed to remove all rubbish.
The rubbish removal claim is dismissed. Carpet claim:
The landlord also claims that the tenant did not leave the carpet reasonably clean and that it had cat wee odour present. Entry photographs provided by the landlord clearly show the carpet in less than satisfactory condition at the start of the tenancy. The carpet was in poor condition with visible stains. Even the ‘start of tenancy’ checklist provided by the landlord confirms various parts of the carpet impacted by permanent staining and burn marks. The tenant also stated during the hearing that there were a number of stray cats in the area.
Given the age and condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy I find that this claim is not supported by the evidence filed.
The claim in respect of carpet cleaning is dismissed.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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. Ceramic Hob:
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged a ceramic hob. I have sighted photographic evidence in support of this claim. During the hearing the tenant confirmed that she does not dispute the damage in this regard.
The claim in respect of the ceramic hob is allowed. Damage to Courtyard fence:
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged a courtyard weather board fence which runs alongside the property. The landlord confirmed during the hearing that no insurance claim has yet been made and is claiming the excess of $500.00. The tenant stated during the hearing that the damage occurred during a storm.
The landlord has not provided any evidence of expenses incurred as a result of this damage claim. There has been no insurance claim to date. There were no invoices provided in support confirming the amount the owner has had to pay for repairs. Without this evidence I am unable to give proper consideration of this claim.
Accordingly, the claim for compensation in respect of damage to the courtyard fence is dismissed.
The landlord also confirmed during the hearing that her property management company is no longer involved in the management of this property.
Because Advantage Realty Limited As Agent For Prakash Singh has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4795577 — net $769.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$350.60	Rent arrears
Water rates	$168.24	Water rates
Repairs: Ceramic hob	$230.00	Repairs: Ceramic hob
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$769.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$769.28

Order

Rikki-lee Hope Dodunski must pay Advantage Realty Limited As Agent For Prakash Singh $769.28 immediately out of bond money held, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord must refund the remaining bond money back to the tenant without delay.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by remote teleconference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 30 November 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted, and discussed this evidence with the landlord I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for these debts.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Rubbish removal:
The landlord provided exit photographs taken on 29 November 2023. The tenant’s last day at the tenancy address was 30 November 2023. She was also being charged rent up until 30 November. The landlord turned up the day before on the basis that she believed the tenant had already vacated. The tenant stated that she planned to return on the 30 th to remove all rubbish.
The tenant was being charged rent up to and including 30 November 2023. She is entitled to full use of the premises up to and including that day. I accept her explanation that she intended returning to remove her belongings. The landlord has attended one day early and now claims that the tenant failed to remove all rubbish.
The rubbish removal claim is dismissed. Carpet claim:
The landlord also claims that the tenant did not leave the carpet reasonably clean and that it had cat wee odour present. Entry photographs provided by the landlord clearly show the carpet in less than satisfactory condition at the start of the tenancy. The carpet was in poor condition with visible stains. Even the ‘start of tenancy’ checklist provided by the landlord confirms various parts of the carpet impacted by permanent staining and burn marks. The tenant also stated during the hearing that there were a number of stray cats in the area.
Given the age and condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy I find that this claim is not supported by the evidence filed.
The claim in respect of carpet cleaning is dismissed.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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. Ceramic Hob:
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged a ceramic hob. I have sighted photographic evidence in support of this claim. During the hearing the tenant confirmed that she does not dispute the damage in this regard.
The claim in respect of the ceramic hob is allowed. Damage to Courtyard fence:
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged a courtyard weather board fence which runs alongside the property. The landlord confirmed during the hearing that no insurance claim has yet been made and is claiming the excess of $500.00. The tenant stated during the hearing that the damage occurred during a storm.
The landlord has not provided any evidence of expenses incurred as a result of this damage claim. There has been no insurance claim to date. There were no invoices provided in support confirming the amount the owner has had to pay for repairs. Without this evidence I am unable to give proper consideration of this claim.
Accordingly, the claim for compensation in respect of damage to the courtyard fence is dismissed.
The landlord also confirmed during the hearing that her property management company is no longer involved in the management of this property.
Because Advantage Realty Limited As Agent For Prakash Singh has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4795577 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 4, 51 Turret Road, Tauranga South, Tauranga

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4795577 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 4, 51 Turret Road, Tauranga South, Tauranga

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions