What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4808143 about?

The tribunal order states: Mitch Mathew and Rae Rae Pavaha must pay [The landlord/s] $5,479.88

How much money was awarded in case 4808143?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,342.86 awarded to landlord; Three Windows: $1,137.02 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4808143?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4808143?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10283561-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4808143 about?

The tribunal order states: Mitch Mathew and Rae Rae Pavaha must pay [The landlord/s] $5,479.88

How much money was awarded in case 4808143?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,342.86 awarded to landlord; Three Windows: $1,137.02 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4808143?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4808143?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10283561-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4808143 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4808143 — net $5,500.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 27 March 2024	$4,342.86	Rent arrears to 27 March 2024
Repairs: three windows	$1,137.02	Repairs: three windows
Reimbursement of filing fee	$20.44	Reimbursement of filing fee
Net award	$5,500.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,500.32

[The landlord] appeared. There was no appearance by the tenant.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation.

The onus of proving a claim will rest with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

The landlord states that on 17 December 2023, they entered into a tenancy agreement with the tenants, whom she understood to be a couple. The tenant had been recommended by another tenant of the landlord, whom it appears continues to be a tenant of the landlord.

The property is a self-contained one-bedroom unit at the located near the landlord’s own house. The landlord states that the tenant paid one weeks rent in cash, $320.00, and then undertook to pay the bond of $640.00 by instalments. The landlord states that the agreement, produced, which is not a standard form residential tenancy agreement, was not signed at the time. The document records the names of the tenants.

The landlord states they handed the tenants the keys, after which the tenant moved their possessions into the property and then left immediately afterward. The landlord states that about a week later the tenants returned.

On 26 December 2023, the landlord prepared a receipt for the bond and went to the property with the receipt and a copy of the agreement for the tenant to sign. The landlord states that the tenant refused to sign the agreement and threw the document on the ground. The receipt has been produced.

The landlord states that on or about 03 January 2024, they went to the address to collect the rent owed but were assaulted by the female tenant who pushed her and then the male who then kicked her in the back of the legs. The material produced suggests that the assault may have been witnessed by the other tenant at the property, but no further details are available.

The landlord states that they called the police who provided a job number and suggested that the landlord attend the police station the next day. Although the landlord states they did so, a police incident acknowledgement form records that the landlord reported the assault on 11 March 2024.

The landlord has produced a letter from her neighbour, who while they did not witness the assault state that they heard shouting coming from the property and that later the landlord appeared upset and reported that they had been “pushed and verbally abused”. The landlord states that despite repeated requests that the tenant continued to refuse to pay rent.

On 04 February 2024, the landlord served the tenant with a 14-day notice terminating the tenancy on the basis that they had assaulted the landlord. A copy has been produced.

The landlord states that shortly afterward she served the tenant with a 63 day notice on the basis that she was going to start using the property personally. A copy of this notice has not been produced.

The landlord states that the male tenant left the property and was replaced by another male. The landlord states that sometime in March they were again assaulted by the female tenant who “grabbed her by the throat”. On this occasion, the landlord states that she insisted that police attend. The landlord states that the police attended and after speaking with both parties stated that no further action would be taken as it was a “he said / she said situation”. The landlord states that police did however visit the property prior to the expiry of the 63-day notices to confirm that the tenant was going to leave. The landlord states that the tenant left the property on 28 March 2024.

The landlord is claiming rent arrears to 28 March 2024, $1,137.59 for repairing three broken windows, $950.00, which is the estimated cost of replacing an external door, cleaning costs of $250.00, and medical bills totalling $76.02. Rent arrears.

The landlord has produced a rent summary which they state shows all the rent payments recorded. Regarding the claim for broken windows the landlord states that they were not repaired until after the tenant vacated the property. The invoice produced shows that the glazier repaired the window on 27 March 2024. On that basis, I cannot award rent arrears to 28 March 2024. I award rent arrears to 27 March 2024.

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. Determining whether a tenant has failed to meet their obligations will involve an objective assessment. In this case there are no photographs showing the inside of the property at the end of the tenancy. There is insufficient evidence. The claim for 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 of the Act.

The landlord states that prior to the end of the tenancy, she discovered that windows in two of the windows and a pane in one of the unit’s doors had been broken. Photographs have been provided showing the damage taken during the tenancy. The landlord has provided photographs of the windows taken just prior to the commencement of the tenancy showing the windows undamaged. I am satisfied that this damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proved that the damage was the result of a careless or intentional act. The amount claimed is awarded.

The landlord has produced a photograph of a door showing a crack. Although the landlord states that the property is 4 or 5 years old, the photographs do not support this. The door in question appears to be weathered showing signs of wear and tear commensurate with an older door. Significantly, there is insufficient evidence concerning the condition of the door at the commencement of the tenancy. There is no pre tenancy check list. The claim for the door is dismissed.

Concerning the claim for the medical bills. Apart from a photograph that the landlord has taken of their own finger there is no other evidence of injury suffered because of the alleged assault. The doctor’s invoices and other documentation produced do not detail the nature of any injury. There is insufficient evidence and the claim for medical expenses is dismissed. Costs

Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression

The landlord seeks name suppression.

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4808143 — net $5,500.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 27 March 2024	$4,342.86	Rent arrears to 27 March 2024
Repairs: three windows	$1,137.02	Repairs: three windows
Reimbursement of filing fee	$20.44	Reimbursement of filing fee
Net award	$5,500.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,500.32

[The landlord] appeared. There was no appearance by the tenant.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation.

On 04 February 2024, the landlord served the tenant with a 14-day notice terminating the tenancy on the basis that they had assaulted the landlord. A copy has been produced.

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression

The landlord seeks name suppression.

The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4808143 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4808143 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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