What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4840060?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 (3464459-004) to Golden

How much money was awarded in case 4840060?

Eviction Warrant: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawnmowing During Tenancy: $324.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4755972 D…: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,206.52 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $75.03 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4840060?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4840060?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10903584-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4840060?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 (3464459-004) to Golden

How much money was awarded in case 4840060?

Eviction Warrant: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawnmowing During Tenancy: $324.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4755972 D…: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,206.52 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $75.03 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4840060?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4840060?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10903584-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 45 The Avenue, Lynfield, Auckland 1042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4840060 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4840060 — net $8,576.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (in total) to 12 February 2024	$5,206.52	Rent arrears (in total) to 12 February 2024
Previous order application 4755972 dated 04/01/2024	$20.44	Previous order application 4755972 dated 04/01/2024
Water rates	$75.03	Water rates
Lawnmowing during tenancy	$324.00	Lawnmowing during tenancy
Eviction warrant	$200.00	Eviction warrant
Lock/key replacement following eviction	$210.00	Lock/key replacement following eviction
Rubbish removal	$2,000.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs to kitchen cabinets	$500.00	Repairs to kitchen cabinets
Window repairs: (x5 windows	$1,200.00	Window repairs: (x5 windows
Carpet replacement	$800.00	Carpet replacement
Repairs to wall and door (plastering and painting	$300.00	Repairs to wall and door (plastering and painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,576.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,576.43

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 (3464459-004) to Golden Spring Group Limited as agent for Mingshen Zhu and Cheuk Yee Edith Cheng immediately.
Renee Antonio Aleke Foliola must pay Golden Spring Group Limited as agent for Mingshen Zhu and Cheuk Yee Edith Cheng $8,576.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order for reimbursement of the filing fee ($20.44) made on 4 January 2024 under application 4755972.

Reasons

This matter was part heard by me on 25 July 2024. At that stage Ms Han and Ms Huo appeared on behalf of the landlord. At the hearing today Ms Han appeared together with Mr Zhu who owns the property together with Ms Cheng.
The tenant did not attend either hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been served with the landlord’s application in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and so the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
This claim concerns the rental of a two bedroom unit located in Lynfield, Auckland. The tenancy began on 31 December 2021 and ended by eviction on 12 February 2024. The landlord filed a claim seeking rent arrears, water arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The matter was adjourned part heard on 25 July 2024 to allow the landlord time to file an invoice (rather than the quote provided) and to provide insurance information and clarify the claims.
The landlord has since provided some additional information and the hearing resumed today.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, being $5,206.52 for rent and $75.03 for water rates).
These claims are proved. Eviction warrant and new lock/key
The tenant did not leave the tenancy and the landlord had to evict the tenant. The landlord provided a copy of the invoice for the eviction warrant in the amount of $200. I order that the tenant compensate the landlord for this amount.
The landlord also had to have the locks replaced and provided an invoice dated 12 February 2024 in the amount of $210. I order that the tenant compensate the landlord for this amount.

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) RTA.
The landlord said that the tenants were responsible for paying for the lawnmowing throughout the tenancy but that the tenants did not pay the invoices.
The tenancy agreement provides that the tenant will be responsible for the lawns and gardens. The landlord provided copies of unpaid invoices for lawnmowing during the tenancy in the amount of $324.00.
This claim is proved.
The landlord said that the tenant did not remove all rubbish. Ms Han said that when the tenant was evicted the landlord allowed him to return to the property to collect his belongings. However the tenant arrived and took some items and told her that he did not want anything else and that they could dispose of the remaining items.
The landlord has claimed as follows for rubbish removal (excluding GST):
The photos provided by the landlord show various items left behind including bed slats, mattresses and various bags of rubbish etc. I consider appropriate compensation to be $2,000 and award that amount.
The landlord also claimed for tidying up of the garden as follows (excluding GST) but withdrew this claim at the hearing as there was not sufficient evidence to prove the claim:

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 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.
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.
It was clear at the hearing that the landlord consider much of the damage to be intentional. He explained that he had approached his insurer to make a claim but was told that the insurer would apply multiple excesses to each claim and that the excesses in each case would exceed the cost of repairs. I have therefore considered the actual amounts paid by the landlord when determining this claim. Damaged kitchen cabinets
The landlord produced photos from the start of the tenancy showing the kitchen cupboards in good condition and photos from the end of the tenancy showing three drawers missing and a door hanging off its hinges.
The landlord produced an invoice as follows (excluding GST):
The property was built in the 1970’s and the landlord purchased the property in 2021. The landlord did not know the age of the kitchen cabinets and so I have had to use my best estimate in assessing the damage, repairs and appropriate depreciation.
I consider appropriate compensation given the repairs required and the age of the kitchen cabinets to be $500 and I order that amount. Damaged glass replacement (ranch slider and patio)
The landlord produced photos showing that five windows were broken during the tenancy, five being panels on a patio entrance and one being the bottom pane of a ranchslider. The landlord sought the following amount (excluding GST):
Compensation must be reasonable. There was no information provided about the size of the windows and so I can only make my own assessment as to reasonable compensation based on the size of the broken windows as shown in the photos. I order compensation in the amount of $1200. Carpet and floor coverings
The landlord produced photos showing various small holes in bedroom 1 and in the lounge and a large hole in the lounge. The landlord sought the following amount for the carpet and floor covering, being tiles in the bathroom (excluding GST).
At the hearing the landlord accepted that the claim in respect of the tiles was not proved. He said that all of the carpet had been replaced and estimated that the carpet in the lounge and bedroom 1 represented approximately 40% of the total carpet. In addition, the carpet was at least three years old at the start of the tenancy (and likely older as the carpet was not new when the landlord purchased the property in 2021). Taking all those matters into consideration I order the compensation for the carpet in the amount of $800. Repair of doors and walls, plaster and paint
The landlord provided various photos showing holes in the walls and doors at the end of the tenancy. However the landlord provided very few photos of the same areas at the start of the tenancy. At the hearing I reviewed all of the photos together with photos taken during the tenancy but the landlord was only able to prove that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. additional damage to the door on bedroom 2; and b. damage to one of the walls in the lounge.
The landlord had sought the following amount by way of compensation (excluding GST):
Only a very small portion of the damage was proved, and some depreciation is required. My best assessment of appropriate compensation for the damage proved is $300. I note that the ingoing inspection report shows that there was some existing damage to the door in bedroom 2.
On 4 January 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears and for refund of the filing fee of $20.44. The order for rent arrears was a conditional order and so this order is for the total arrears. The previous order for payment of the filing fee for that application is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
The landlord also filed claims for the following repairs but during the hearing withdrew the claims on the basis that there was not sufficient evidence to prove the damage claimed as follows (excluding GST): Name suppression and filing fee
Because Golden Spring Group Limited as agent for Mingshen Zhu and Cheuk Yee Edith Cheng has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $20.44 for this application.
The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression and the tenant is not entitled to such an order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4840060 — net $8,576.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (in total) to 12 February 2024	$5,206.52	Rent arrears (in total) to 12 February 2024
Previous order application 4755972 dated 04/01/2024	$20.44	Previous order application 4755972 dated 04/01/2024
Water rates	$75.03	Water rates
Lawnmowing during tenancy	$324.00	Lawnmowing during tenancy
Eviction warrant	$200.00	Eviction warrant
Lock/key replacement following eviction	$210.00	Lock/key replacement following eviction
Rubbish removal	$2,000.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs to kitchen cabinets	$500.00	Repairs to kitchen cabinets
Window repairs: (x5 windows	$1,200.00	Window repairs: (x5 windows
Carpet replacement	$800.00	Carpet replacement
Repairs to wall and door (plastering and painting	$300.00	Repairs to wall and door (plastering and painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,576.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,576.43

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 (3464459-004) to Golden Spring Group Limited as agent for Mingshen Zhu and Cheuk Yee Edith Cheng immediately.
Renee Antonio Aleke Foliola must pay Golden Spring Group Limited as agent for Mingshen Zhu and Cheuk Yee Edith Cheng $8,576.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order for reimbursement of the filing fee ($20.44) made on 4 January 2024 under application 4755972.

Reasons

This matter was part heard by me on 25 July 2024. At that stage Ms Han and Ms Huo appeared on behalf of the landlord. At the hearing today Ms Han appeared together with Mr Zhu who owns the property together with Ms Cheng.
The tenant did not attend either hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been served with the landlord’s application in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and so the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
This claim concerns the rental of a two bedroom unit located in Lynfield, Auckland. The tenancy began on 31 December 2021 and ended by eviction on 12 February 2024. The landlord filed a claim seeking rent arrears, water arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The matter was adjourned part heard on 25 July 2024 to allow the landlord time to file an invoice (rather than the quote provided) and to provide insurance information and clarify the claims.
The landlord has since provided some additional information and the hearing resumed today.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, being $5,206.52 for rent and $75.03 for water rates).
These claims are proved. Eviction warrant and new lock/key
The tenant did not leave the tenancy and the landlord had to evict the tenant. The landlord provided a copy of the invoice for the eviction warrant in the amount of $200. I order that the tenant compensate the landlord for this amount.
The landlord also had to have the locks replaced and provided an invoice dated 12 February 2024 in the amount of $210. I order that the tenant compensate the landlord for this amount.

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) RTA.
The landlord said that the tenants were responsible for paying for the lawnmowing throughout the tenancy but that the tenants did not pay the invoices.
The tenancy agreement provides that the tenant will be responsible for the lawns and gardens. The landlord provided copies of unpaid invoices for lawnmowing during the tenancy in the amount of $324.00.
This claim is proved.
The landlord said that the tenant did not remove all rubbish. Ms Han said that when the tenant was evicted the landlord allowed him to return to the property to collect his belongings. However the tenant arrived and took some items and told her that he did not want anything else and that they could dispose of the remaining items.
The landlord has claimed as follows for rubbish removal (excluding GST):
The photos provided by the landlord show various items left behind including bed slats, mattresses and various bags of rubbish etc. I consider appropriate compensation to be $2,000 and award that amount.
The landlord also claimed for tidying up of the garden as follows (excluding GST) but withdrew this claim at the hearing as there was not sufficient evidence to prove the claim:

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 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.
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.
It was clear at the hearing that the landlord consider much of the damage to be intentional. He explained that he had approached his insurer to make a claim but was told that the insurer would apply multiple excesses to each claim and that the excesses in each case would exceed the cost of repairs. I have therefore considered the actual amounts paid by the landlord when determining this claim. Damaged kitchen cabinets
The landlord produced photos from the start of the tenancy showing the kitchen cupboards in good condition and photos from the end of the tenancy showing three drawers missing and a door hanging off its hinges.
The landlord produced an invoice as follows (excluding GST):
The property was built in the 1970’s and the landlord purchased the property in 2021. The landlord did not know the age of the kitchen cabinets and so I have had to use my best estimate in assessing the damage, repairs and appropriate depreciation.
I consider appropriate compensation given the repairs required and the age of the kitchen cabinets to be $500 and I order that amount. Damaged glass replacement (ranch slider and patio)
The landlord produced photos showing that five windows were broken during the tenancy, five being panels on a patio entrance and one being the bottom pane of a ranchslider. The landlord sought the following amount (excluding GST):
Compensation must be reasonable. There was no information provided about the size of the windows and so I can only make my own assessment as to reasonable compensation based on the size of the broken windows as shown in the photos. I order compensation in the amount of $1200. Carpet and floor coverings
The landlord produced photos showing various small holes in bedroom 1 and in the lounge and a large hole in the lounge. The landlord sought the following amount for the carpet and floor covering, being tiles in the bathroom (excluding GST).
At the hearing the landlord accepted that the claim in respect of the tiles was not proved. He said that all of the carpet had been replaced and estimated that the carpet in the lounge and bedroom 1 represented approximately 40% of the total carpet. In addition, the carpet was at least three years old at the start of the tenancy (and likely older as the carpet was not new when the landlord purchased the property in 2021). Taking all those matters into consideration I order the compensation for the carpet in the amount of $800. Repair of doors and walls, plaster and paint
The landlord provided various photos showing holes in the walls and doors at the end of the tenancy. However the landlord provided very few photos of the same areas at the start of the tenancy. At the hearing I reviewed all of the photos together with photos taken during the tenancy but the landlord was only able to prove that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. additional damage to the door on bedroom 2; and b. damage to one of the walls in the lounge.
The landlord had sought the following amount by way of compensation (excluding GST):
Only a very small portion of the damage was proved, and some depreciation is required. My best assessment of appropriate compensation for the damage proved is $300. I note that the ingoing inspection report shows that there was some existing damage to the door in bedroom 2.
On 4 January 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears and for refund of the filing fee of $20.44. The order for rent arrears was a conditional order and so this order is for the total arrears. The previous order for payment of the filing fee for that application is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
The landlord also filed claims for the following repairs but during the hearing withdrew the claims on the basis that there was not sufficient evidence to prove the damage claimed as follows (excluding GST): Name suppression and filing fee
Because Golden Spring Group Limited as agent for Mingshen Zhu and Cheuk Yee Edith Cheng has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $20.44 for this application.
The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression and the tenant is not entitled to such an order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4840060 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 45 The Avenue, Lynfield, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4840060 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 45 The Avenue, Lynfield, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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