What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4838200 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Nzpro Property Management Limited As Agent For Iang

How much money was awarded in case 4838200?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Final Water Charges (Agreed By Conse…: $236.33 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $174.80 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4838200?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4838200?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10576875-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4838200 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Nzpro Property Management Limited As Agent For Iang

How much money was awarded in case 4838200?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Final Water Charges (Agreed By Conse…: $236.33 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $174.80 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4838200?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4838200?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10576875-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4838200 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4838200 — net $531.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Final water charges (agreed by consent	$236.33	Final water charges (agreed by consent
Replacement gate remote (agreed by consent	$100.00	Replacement gate remote (agreed by consent
Replace missing light bulbs (agreed by consent	$174.80	Replace missing light bulbs (agreed by consent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$531.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$531.57

[The tenant/s] to pay Nzpro Property Management Limited As Agent For Iang Houa Lim $531.57 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Nzpro Property Management Limited As Agent For Iang Houa Lim: $531.57 [The tenant/s] $994.21 [The tenant/s] $994.21

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. Given a breakdown in the tenants’ relationship and a protection order being in place, the hearing was conducted by shuttle conference phone calls between the tenants separately.

The landlord has applied for final water charges ($36.33), compensation (garage remote replacement ($100.00) and replace missing light bulbs ($174.80), refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

What was owed by the tenants at the end of the tenancy?

A tenant is responsible for water charges incurred during the tenancy on the basis of consumption (see section 39(4)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)).

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) RTA. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The tenancy ended on 10 January 2024. The landlord proved with evidence including water rates invoices that final water charges were owed, the tenants did not return the gate remote, and the landlord had to replace light bulbs at the end of the tenancy.

I find the tenants are liable for the charges claimed by the landlord.

The amounts ordered are proved. The amount of $531.57 is to be refunded to the landlord from the bond.

As the landlord has been wholly successful with the claims brought, I must order the tenants to reimburse the filing fee. Who should the remaining bond of $1,988.43 be refunded to?

There was a disagreement between the tenants as to who the remaining bond should be refunded to. [The tenant/s] believes the bond should be refunded to him as he had paid the total bond himself. [The tenant/s] considered this was not fair as she was the one who took care of the property.

The tenants were joint tenants of the rented premises. This means they were jointly and severally liable under the terms of their tenancy agreement.

Given the circumstances, and in line with the concept of joint liability entrenched in the common law, I consider it reasonable to refund the remaining bond equally between the tenants. Each tenant is to be refunded $994.21. Suppression order

The landlord indicated in the application form that no suppression order pursuant to section 95A(1) RTA was sought. Accordingly, I have not made a suppression order in favour of the landlord.

The tenants did not apply for a suppression order but I have the ability to grant suppression on my own initiative pursuant to section 95A(4). In the circumstances, it is appropriate to grant suppression to maintain privacy and to ensure there is no prejudice to the administration of justice. Such public interest as there may be in this case does not, in my view, outweigh these factors. I have made a suppression order in favour of the tenants.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4838200 — net $531.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Final water charges (agreed by consent	$236.33	Final water charges (agreed by consent
Replacement gate remote (agreed by consent	$100.00	Replacement gate remote (agreed by consent
Replace missing light bulbs (agreed by consent	$174.80	Replace missing light bulbs (agreed by consent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$531.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$531.57

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Nzpro Property Management Limited As Agent For Iang Houa Lim $531.57 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Nzpro Property Management Limited As Agent For Iang Houa Lim: $531.57 [The tenant/s] $994.21 [The tenant/s] $994.21

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. Given a breakdown in the tenants’ relationship and a protection order being in place, the hearing was conducted by shuttle conference phone calls between the tenants separately.
The landlord has applied for final water charges ($36.33), compensation (garage remote replacement ($100.00) and replace missing light bulbs ($174.80), refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

What was owed by the tenants at the end of the tenancy?

A tenant is responsible for water charges incurred during the tenancy on the basis of consumption (see section 39(4)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)).
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) RTA. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenancy ended on 10 January 2024. The landlord proved with evidence including water rates invoices that final water charges were owed, the tenants did not return the gate remote, and the landlord had to replace light bulbs at the end of the tenancy.
I find the tenants are liable for the charges claimed by the landlord.
The amounts ordered are proved. The amount of $531.57 is to be refunded to the landlord from the bond.
As the landlord has been wholly successful with the claims brought, I must order the tenants to reimburse the filing fee. Who should the remaining bond of $1,988.43 be refunded to?
There was a disagreement between the tenants as to who the remaining bond should be refunded to. [The tenant/s] believes the bond should be refunded to him as he had paid the total bond himself. [The tenant/s] considered this was not fair as she was the one who took care of the property.
The tenants were joint tenants of the rented premises. This means they were jointly and severally liable under the terms of their tenancy agreement.
Given the circumstances, and in line with the concept of joint liability entrenched in the common law, I consider it reasonable to refund the remaining bond equally between the tenants. Each tenant is to be refunded $994.21. Suppression order
The landlord indicated in the application form that no suppression order pursuant to section 95A(1) RTA was sought. Accordingly, I have not made a suppression order in favour of the landlord.
The tenants did not apply for a suppression order but I have the ability to grant suppression on my own initiative pursuant to section 95A(4). In the circumstances, it is appropriate to grant suppression to maintain privacy and to ensure there is no prejudice to the administration of justice. Such public interest as there may be in this case does not, in my view, outweigh these factors. I have made a suppression order in favour of the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4838200 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4838200 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What was owed by the tenants at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What was owed by the tenants at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions