What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4835464 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Bonnie-Rae Karauria and Chance Kahutonu McLaren at 127I

How much money was awarded in case 4835464?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $264.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,613.29 awarded to landlord; Replace Remote Heat Pump Remote: $270.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4835464?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4835464?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10155766-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4835464 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Bonnie-Rae Karauria and Chance Kahutonu McLaren at 127I

How much money was awarded in case 4835464?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $264.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,613.29 awarded to landlord; Replace Remote Heat Pump Remote: $270.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4835464?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4835464?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10155766-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

127I Galloway Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4835464 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4835464 — net $2,168.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 02 April 2024	$1,613.29	Rent arrears to 02 April 2024
Replace remote heat pump remote	$270.25	Replace remote heat pump remote
Repair glass in ranchslider door	$264.50	Repair glass in ranchslider door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,168.48
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,168.48

The tenancy of Bonnie-Rae Karauria and Chance Kahutonu McLaren at 127I Galloway Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.

Bonnie-Rae Karauria and Chance Kahutonu McLaren to pay [The landlord/s] $2,168.48 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,168.48 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The remainder of the bond of $71.52 is to remain with Bond Centre until the parties agree its release, or further order of the Tribunal.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative] appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.

On 13 March 2024, the landlord filed an application seeking termination of the tenancy due to a failure to remedy a 14-day breach notice issued on 26 February 2024. This notice requires the tenant to remove rubbish from the outside of the property. The landlord also claimed the tenant was responsible for a damaged ranchslider pane, and a missing heat pump remote.

The application was set down for hearing on 25 March 2024. On that date, [The landlord’s representative]. There was no appearance by the tenant.

[The landlord’s representative] stated that on 26 February 2024, the landlord had issued the tenant with a breach notice to removed rubbish from around the outside of the house. [The landlord’s representative] stated that she had visited the property earlier on the hearing day and that the rubbish concerned was still present. A photograph was produced. The rubbish appeared to be a significant amount general household rubbish piled against the side of the house. [The landlord’s representative] stated that the rubbish was causing a nuisance to neighbours living close by, and that the landlord was concerned that the rubbish was also attracting vermin and posing a health and safety risk to both occupants and neighbours. Law

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.

Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.

[The landlord’s representative] stated the landlord had issued a previous notice in February 2023 for failing to keep the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Although, it was not remedied, no application had been filed at that time.

In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy:

The issue discussed was whether termination for failure to keep the property reasonably clean and remove all rubbish is proportionate. The Tribunal expressed the opinion, that the state of uncleanliness must have reached a stage where it is posing a demonstrable risk to the health and safety of the tenant, and, in this case the neighbours.

The evidence produced suggested that the failure to remove the rubbish may have reached that threshold.

After considering the matter, the Tribunal adjourned to give the tenant an opportunity to comply with the notice and remove all rubbish from the property. The adjournment order was emailed to the tenant at their address for service warned that if that had not done so by the next hearing, Tuesday 02 April 2024, that the tenancy would likely be terminated.

[The landlord’s representative] states that soon after the adjournment, the landlord gave the tenant notice that they intended conducting an inspection today. [The landlord’s representative] states that earlier this morning she visited the property. Photographs of the inside and outside of the property have been produced. The amount of rubbish around the outside of the property appears to be greater than that depicted in the photographs provided at the previous hearing. [The landlord’s representative] states that the property appears to have been abandoned, that the front door and windows were open, and the inside of the property appeared to have been “ransacked”: The photographs show the inside of the property in disarray. Decision

The rubbish is more likely than not posing a risk to the health and safety of the occupants and nearby neighbours. On the evidence, I am satisfied that the notice to remove rubbish has not been remedied, and that it would now be inequitable to refuse termination. Rent arrears.

On the last occasion the landlord was granted leave to amend the application to include rent arrears. Details of the amendment and updated rent summary has been provided to the tenant. The rent summary shows that no rent has been paid since 13 March 2024. The amount claimed to today, the end of the tenancy, has been confirmed by the Tribunal and is awarded.

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

The landlord states that during the tenancy, the tenant advised that the remote control for the heat pump had gone missing. The remote control is listed in the tenancy agreement as a chattel. The unit was replaced at a cost of $270.25. An invoice has been produced.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii) -(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Subject to fair wear and tear a tenant is liable for those chattels that are damaged, or in this case, not returned.

I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to account for the remote unit. The claim is proven. The compensation sought is awarded.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for damage to glass in a ranch slider. [The landlord’s representative] states that around May 2023, she was advised by the tenant that the damage had occurred. [The landlord’s representative] believes that the damage was caused during a dispute at the property involving the tenant and someone known to the tenant. A photograph has been produced. The damage is consistent with the door being struck or slammed with force. The landlord is claiming $264.50 to repair the glass. Law

To succeed with a claim for damage 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. Decision

In this case, I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is awarded. Costs

Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse 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 wholly successful and is granted name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4835464 — net $2,168.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 02 April 2024	$1,613.29	Rent arrears to 02 April 2024
Replace remote heat pump remote	$270.25	Replace remote heat pump remote
Repair glass in ranchslider door	$264.50	Repair glass in ranchslider door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,168.48
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,168.48

The tenancy of Bonnie-Rae Karauria and Chance Kahutonu McLaren at 127I Galloway Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.

Bonnie-Rae Karauria and Chance Kahutonu McLaren to pay [The landlord/s] $2,168.48 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative] appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.

The application was set down for hearing on 25 March 2024. On that date, [The landlord’s representative]. There was no appearance by the tenant.

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.

The evidence produced suggested that the failure to remove the rubbish may have reached that threshold.

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

I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to account for the remote unit. The claim is proven. The compensation sought is awarded.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

In this case, I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is awarded. Costs

Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression

The landlord seeks name suppression.

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

Tenancy Tribunal case 4835464 — Rent arrears at 127I Galloway Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4835464 — Rent arrears at 127I Galloway Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

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