What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4830518?

The tribunal order states: Julie Harbord and Kristian Linwood must pay Oakheart Properties Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4830518?

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 4830518?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4830518?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10743932-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4830518?

The tribunal order states: Julie Harbord and Kristian Linwood must pay Oakheart Properties Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4830518?

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 4830518?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4830518?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10743932-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

424A Cuba Street, Alicetown, Lower Hutt 5010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4830518 — Rent arrears

Order

Julie Harbord and Kristian Linwood must pay Oakheart Properties Limited Trading As Quinovic Property Management $1,144.73 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
Matthew Bauer must pay Oakheart Properties Limited Trading As Quinovic Property Management $656.71 by deduction from his share of the bond calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,340.00 (4029867-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Oakheart Properties Limited Trading As Quinovic Property Management: $2,216.71 Matthew Bauer: $123.29

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by any of the tenants.
Julie Harbord telephoned Tenancy Services at approximately 12.35pm on 22 August 2023 (less than 90 minutes before the scheduled hearing time) to inform the Tribunal that she and her partner would be unable to attend the hearing as they were currently in Auckland for an interview. The Tenancy Services Call Centre operator advised her to contact MOJ to discuss the situation with them.
The following emails were then exchanged between the Hutt Valley Registry (HV) and Julie Harbord (JH) on the hearing day (22.8.2024) as follows: Email from JH to HV at 12.38pm: “Hi I’m so sorry I just got the text that I have a hearing at 2pm and I’m currently in Auckland and can’t attend. My partner is also here with me and we have no-one to attend on our behalf.” Email from HV to JH at 1.54pm: “The Adjudicator has said that you will be called for the hearing at 2pm.” Email from JH to HV at 1.55pm: “I won’t be able to take the call as I have some meetings on for jobs. I’m going in now and I don’t know when I will be out.” Email from HV to JH at 2pm: “The hearing will proceed.” Email from JH to HV at 2.07 pm (after hearing in session): “How am I supposed to represent myself. I only found out an hour ago that it was even happening today.”
This is the second time that Julie Harbord has advised that she could not attend the hearing. The hearing was originally scheduled to take place on 18 June 2024. Julie Harbord emailed the Tribunal advising that she could not attend because of illness; she was too ill to attend by telephone when that was offered as an option; and she had not received a copy of the application. The hearing was adjourned, and a copy of the landlord’s application was emailed to the tenant.
The notice of hearing for today’s hearing was emailed to the Julie Harbord on 15 July 2024 at the email address she has used to email the Tribunal. Notice was also sent by text message. Both of the other tenants were also emailed and messaged about the hearing. Further text message reminders about the hearing were also sent to all tenants on 20 and 22 August 2024.
I am satisfied that all tenants were served with notice of the hearing well in advance of the heraing and have not attended.
The tenants were required to attend the hearing in person and have not done so. Julie Harbord did not ask for an adjournment and turned down the offer of a telephone call for the hearing. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that it was appropriate to proceed with 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?

The tenancy of all three tenants ended on 10 January 2024 after a 28-day notice was given by Matthew Bauer. After this date, Julie Harbord and Kristian Linwood (the remaining tenants) contacted the landlord to ask for an extension of the tenancy to 4 February which was agreed on the basis that they would be solely responsible for the full weekly rent of $585 from 11 January onwards. The landlord prepared an addendum to record the arrangement, which the remaining tenants did not sign. However, the landlord says that it reflects the oral agreement reached. Later the remaining tenants requested a further extension to 11 February on the same basis, which the landlord agreed to. The landlord prepared a second addendum recording the arrangement which the remaining tenants did not sign, but the landlord says reflects the agreement reached.
On 11 February, the remaining tenants advised the landlord that they had some further items and rubbish to remove from the property and would return the following Tuesday, 13 February, to remove them.
On 14 February, the landlord arrived at the property to conduct an end of tenancy inspection and found that the remaining tenants had not cleared all their belongings and rubbish. The landlord tried to contact the tenants, but they did not reply to his messages.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy of all three tenants on 10 January. The arrears owed was $390 and the landlord says that Matthew Bauer is responsible for those arrears. They seek an order for those arrears against his name only. The amount is proved, and an order made accordingly.
The landlord also provided rent records to show the further arrears owed from 11 January to 11 February being the extended tenancy period agreed. I am satisfied on the evidence that the remaining tenants are jointly responsible for those arrears of $1,504.29. The amount is proved, and an order made accordingly.

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 landlord did not conduct an inspection of the premises when the tenancy of all three tenants ended on 10 January 2024 (the first tenancy). Therefore the condition of the premises at that point is not documented. The landlord only completed an exit inspection after the extended tenancy period ended on 14 February 2024 (the extended tenancy). I accept that at that date the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy, and the tenants did not remove all rubbish and belongings as shown in photos taken by the landlord and produced in evidence. The landlord incurred costs of $667 for cleaning and disposal of rubbish and belongings.
The issue to determine is who is responsible for these costs. Is it the three tenants jointly and severally under the first tenancy agreement or is it the remaining tenants under the extended tenancy?
The problem with this claim is that the landlord is unable to establish the cleaning and rubbish removal work required at the end of the first tenancy, for which all three tenants would be jointly and severally liable, because no inspection was conducted by the landlord at that point. Mr Bauer was not a party to the agreement to extend the tenancy and he might argue that he left the premises reasonably clean and tidy at that date and the subsequent costs were caused by the remaining tenants during the extended tenancy.
The remaining tenants might argue that some of the costs were caused by Mr Bauer’s failure to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the first tenancy. However, even if that is the case, the nature of joint and several liability means that each tenant is liable for the obligations of all tenants, and the landlord is entitled to choose whether to pursue one or more of the tenants responsible. Therefore, the remaining tenants can be held liable for the condition of the premises on 10 January, whether caused just by Mr Bauer or by all or any of them.
The remaining tenants are also jointly and severally liable for the cleaning and rubbish removal required at the end of their extended tenancy. That being the case, the remaining tenants can be held responsible for the full cleaning costs, notwithstanding that the landlord cannot establish what if any work was required following the end of the first tenancy. This is likely a fair outcome, given that the remaining tenants stayed at the premises for an extra month and advised the landlord that they intended to come back and remove their belongings but did not do so.
Mr Bauer, on the other hand cannot be held liable for any of the cleaning costs because the landlord cannot establish whether any of the cleaning and rubbish removal work was attributable to the first tenancy, and he is only liable for the first tenancy obligations.
Therefore, I find that the remaining tenants are liable for the full amount of the cleaning and rubbish removal costs and the claim for those costs against Mr Bauer must be dismissed.
Should the remaining tenants claim that Mr Bauer is responsible for some of those costs, they could ask him to contribute by reimbursing them, failing which they could pursue him through the Disputes Tribunal. However, this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between tenants.

Are the tenants 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 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. In this case the landlord has cover with a $500 excess.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: The toilet and shower drain for the premises became blocked 17 months into the tenancy in August 2023. The plumber called to investigate the blockage had to arrange for a drainage team to jet flush the line and discovered wet wipes had blocked the pipes. The landlord believes that the tenants flushed wet wipes through the system which caused the blockage over time, and they are responsible for the repair costs. This is because the landlord observed wet wipes at the property; knew that Ms Harbord had also given birth during the tenancy so was using baby wet wipes; and the blockage occurred 18 months into the tenancy which infers that it must have occurred during, not before the tenancy began.
I accept the landlord’s submission and find that the blockage was caused during the tenancy, other than through fair wear and tear and was intentional, in that the tenants ought to know that flushing wet wipes down the drain on a regular basis will cause a blockage. In any event, the tenants did not disprove liability for the damage. The damage and subsequent repairs took place in August 2023, during the first tenancy. Therefore, all three tenants are jointly & severally liable.
There are two distinct tenancy periods in this case and the three tenants are not jointly and severally liable for the arrears and damage for both periods. Therefore, I have made orders dealing with the extent to which each tenant is liable for the claims and applied their share of the bond accordingly. I consider that this is the fairest outcome for all.
As the landlord has largely succeeded with their claims, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee, a share of which has been allocated to each tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4830518 — Rent arrears at 424A Cuba Street, Alicetown, Lower Hutt 5010

Tenancy Tribunal case 4830518 — Rent arrears at 424A Cuba Street, Alicetown, Lower Hutt 5010

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management