What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4820480 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4820480?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,022.66 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $196.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4820480?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4820480?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10311724-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4820480 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4820480?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,022.66 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $196.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4820480?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4820480?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10311724-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

41 Alexander Avenue, Onekawa, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4820480 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

41 Alexander Avenue, Onekawa, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4820480 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4820480. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,022.66	Rent arrears
Window repairs: Sliding door	$196.00	Window repairs: Sliding door
Insurance excess – lino flooring	$500.00	Insurance excess – lino flooring
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Claims and awards for application 4820480. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $2,022.66
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Window repairs: Sliding door

Amount: $196.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs: Sliding door

Insurance excess – lino flooring

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Insurance excess – lino flooring

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Twin City Properties Limited as Agent for Rachel & Paul Cleary $259.10 (“the debt”), calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Twin City Properties Limited as Agent for Rachel & Paul Cleary immediately.
By consent, the debt is to be paid by weekly payments of $50.00 with the first payment on Thursday 16 May 2024 and continuing every Thursday until the debt is paid in full.
If any of the payments due under Order 4 is not paid within 2 working days of the due date, then the whole of the remaining debt will become payable immediately.

Reasons

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

How much is owed for rent?

This tenancy was for a fixed term ending on 23 February 2024.
There is no dispute about the rent that was paid, but the parties do not agree about the date rent should have been paid to.
The landlord claims rent to 8 March 2024 on the basis that the tenants gave 4 weeks’ notice of termination on 9 February 2024.
On 27 January 2024 the tenants advised the landlord that [one of the tenants] had lost his job and they would struggle with the rent. They met with the property manager the same day. The tenants say they made it clear that they wanted to end the tenancy. The property manager says that was one of the options discussed, along with seeking help from WINZ or taking drawings from Kiwisaver.
The tenants put forward alternative tenants, who lodged an application for the tenancy on 27 January 2024. That application was declined by the landlord.
In my view, arranging for an application to be lodged for alternative tenants, was a clear indicator that the tenants wished to end the tenancy and corroborates their position that on 27 January 2024 the tenants gave notice of their intention to end the tenancy.
At that time, the parties were in a fixed term tenancy which could not be ended by giving notice. During the hearing I expressed a view that the tenants were not able to give 28 days’ notice terminating the tenancy, before the end of the fixed term.
I apologise to the parties for the error but in looking again at the provisions of s.60A, I now believe that the view I expressed during the hearing was incorrect.
The situation here is covered by s. 60A(3) and (4) which provide that where, before a fixed term tenancy continues as a periodic tenancy under s.60A(1), notice is given that would have terminated the tenancy after the continuation, if it had been a periodic tenancy, the tenancy is terminated from that time.
Accordingly, as I have found that notice of termination was given on 27 January 2024, which would have terminated the tenancy after the tenancy became periodic, that notice of termination is effective. The effective end date is therefore 24 February 2024, being 4 weeks from 27 January 2024. The tenants vacated the premises and handed over the keys on that date. Final inspection was also carried out on that date.
At 24 February 2024 the rent owing was $2,032.66. Continuing $1.00 weekly payments from WINZ since that date bring the total now owing down to $2,022.66. The tenants will arrange for those WINZ payments to stop.
The landlord brings a claim for the cost of a credit check on the applicants proposed by the tenants. That claim is made on the basis that it was a cost only incurred for the tenants’ benefit in wanting to end the tenancy as soon as possible.
I am not persuaded that the credit check fee was a cost caused by any breach on the tenants’ part. They had given notice of termination and the landlord assessed the application of the people the tenants had arranged to make an application. I find no ground for compensation to be paid.

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

The landlord brought claims for carpet cleaning and lawnmowing work. Those claims were accepted by the tenants and have since been paid.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The tenants accept that they owe $196.00 for work done to repair sliding door glass during the tenancy.
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.
It is not disputed that linoleum flooring in the kitchen was damaged. Photographs show that it had lifted and broken along joins.
The landlord’s position is that the damage was likely caused by the tenants’ use of a steam mop on the floor. It also says that the damage must have been apparent to the tenants, but it was not made known to the property manager who first became aware of the damage when he as at the premises with prospective tenants on 9 February 2024. He says he did not notice the damage at the previous inspection on 22 January 2024.
The tenants say that there was some lifting of the linoleum shown in photos from the pre-tenancy inspection. They were not aware or told by the property manager that a steam mop should not have been used to clean the linoleum floors. They say that they were not aware of the damage either until 9 February 2024 and they stopped using the steam mop form that time.
New tenants have moved into the premises, but the landlord says it has an obligation to those tenants to have the flooring replaced. An insurance claim has been made but the property manager is unaware yet of whether the claim has been accepted.
While there may have been some existing damage, additional damage to the floors occurred during the tenancy which is more than fair wear and tear. That means there is an obligation on the tenants to provide evidence to show that the damage was not caused by them carelessly. There is no suggestion of any intentional damage.
I accept the tenants’ evidence that they did not know and were not made aware that a steam mop should not have been used on the floors. But, as the people occupying the premises, my view is that they ought to have been aware of the ongoing effect on the flooring, of the steam mop being used. They were the ones in a position to avoid ongoing damage and had an obligation to inform the landlord, so the damage did not become worse.
On balance, I find that the landlord should be compensated for the loss caused by having to replace the linoleum. As the claim is limited to the excess payable on the insurance claim, depreciation need not be applied.
Because Twin City Properties Limited As Agent For Rachel & Paul Cleary has succeeded with claims I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4820480. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,022.66	Rent arrears
Window repairs: Sliding door	$196.00	Window repairs: Sliding door
Insurance excess – lino flooring	$500.00	Insurance excess – lino flooring
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Claims and awards for application 4820480. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $2,022.66
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Window repairs: Sliding door

Amount: $196.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs: Sliding door

Insurance excess – lino flooring

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Insurance excess – lino flooring

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Twin City Properties Limited as Agent for Rachel & Paul Cleary $259.10 (“the debt”), calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Twin City Properties Limited as Agent for Rachel & Paul Cleary immediately.
By consent, the debt is to be paid by weekly payments of $50.00 with the first payment on Thursday 16 May 2024 and continuing every Thursday until the debt is paid in full.
If any of the payments due under Order 4 is not paid within 2 working days of the due date, then the whole of the remaining debt will become payable immediately.

Reasons

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

How much is owed for rent?

This tenancy was for a fixed term ending on 23 February 2024.
There is no dispute about the rent that was paid, but the parties do not agree about the date rent should have been paid to.
The landlord claims rent to 8 March 2024 on the basis that the tenants gave 4 weeks’ notice of termination on 9 February 2024.
On 27 January 2024 the tenants advised the landlord that [one of the tenants] had lost his job and they would struggle with the rent. They met with the property manager the same day. The tenants say they made it clear that they wanted to end the tenancy. The property manager says that was one of the options discussed, along with seeking help from WINZ or taking drawings from Kiwisaver.
The tenants put forward alternative tenants, who lodged an application for the tenancy on 27 January 2024. That application was declined by the landlord.
In my view, arranging for an application to be lodged for alternative tenants, was a clear indicator that the tenants wished to end the tenancy and corroborates their position that on 27 January 2024 the tenants gave notice of their intention to end the tenancy.
At that time, the parties were in a fixed term tenancy which could not be ended by giving notice. During the hearing I expressed a view that the tenants were not able to give 28 days’ notice terminating the tenancy, before the end of the fixed term.
I apologise to the parties for the error but in looking again at the provisions of s.60A, I now believe that the view I expressed during the hearing was incorrect.
The situation here is covered by s. 60A(3) and (4) which provide that where, before a fixed term tenancy continues as a periodic tenancy under s.60A(1), notice is given that would have terminated the tenancy after the continuation, if it had been a periodic tenancy, the tenancy is terminated from that time.
Accordingly, as I have found that notice of termination was given on 27 January 2024, which would have terminated the tenancy after the tenancy became periodic, that notice of termination is effective. The effective end date is therefore 24 February 2024, being 4 weeks from 27 January 2024. The tenants vacated the premises and handed over the keys on that date. Final inspection was also carried out on that date.
At 24 February 2024 the rent owing was $2,032.66. Continuing $1.00 weekly payments from WINZ since that date bring the total now owing down to $2,022.66. The tenants will arrange for those WINZ payments to stop.
The landlord brings a claim for the cost of a credit check on the applicants proposed by the tenants. That claim is made on the basis that it was a cost only incurred for the tenants’ benefit in wanting to end the tenancy as soon as possible.
I am not persuaded that the credit check fee was a cost caused by any breach on the tenants’ part. They had given notice of termination and the landlord assessed the application of the people the tenants had arranged to make an application. I find no ground for compensation to be paid.

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

The landlord brought claims for carpet cleaning and lawnmowing work. Those claims were accepted by the tenants and have since been paid.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The tenants accept that they owe $196.00 for work done to repair sliding door glass during the tenancy.
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.
It is not disputed that linoleum flooring in the kitchen was damaged. Photographs show that it had lifted and broken along joins.
The landlord’s position is that the damage was likely caused by the tenants’ use of a steam mop on the floor. It also says that the damage must have been apparent to the tenants, but it was not made known to the property manager who first became aware of the damage when he as at the premises with prospective tenants on 9 February 2024. He says he did not notice the damage at the previous inspection on 22 January 2024.
The tenants say that there was some lifting of the linoleum shown in photos from the pre-tenancy inspection. They were not aware or told by the property manager that a steam mop should not have been used to clean the linoleum floors. They say that they were not aware of the damage either until 9 February 2024 and they stopped using the steam mop form that time.
New tenants have moved into the premises, but the landlord says it has an obligation to those tenants to have the flooring replaced. An insurance claim has been made but the property manager is unaware yet of whether the claim has been accepted.
While there may have been some existing damage, additional damage to the floors occurred during the tenancy which is more than fair wear and tear. That means there is an obligation on the tenants to provide evidence to show that the damage was not caused by them carelessly. There is no suggestion of any intentional damage.
I accept the tenants’ evidence that they did not know and were not made aware that a steam mop should not have been used on the floors. But, as the people occupying the premises, my view is that they ought to have been aware of the ongoing effect on the flooring, of the steam mop being used. They were the ones in a position to avoid ongoing damage and had an obligation to inform the landlord, so the damage did not become worse.
On balance, I find that the landlord should be compensated for the loss caused by having to replace the linoleum. As the claim is limited to the excess payable on the insurance claim, depreciation need not be applied.
Because Twin City Properties Limited As Agent For Rachel & Paul Cleary has succeeded with claims I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4820480 — Rent arrears at 41 Alexander Avenue, Onekawa, Napier 4110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4820480 — Rent arrears at 41 Alexander Avenue, Onekawa, Napier 4110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenants 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

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenants 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