What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4853763?

The tribunal order states: Memory Katuke, Jerome Moeroa, Aaron Magele, Reece Katuke and Kyszah

How much money was awarded in case 4853763?

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 4853763?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4853763?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10411235-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4853763?

The tribunal order states: Memory Katuke, Jerome Moeroa, Aaron Magele, Reece Katuke and Kyszah

How much money was awarded in case 4853763?

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 4853763?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4853763?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10411235-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

158 Ettrick Street, Appleby, Invercargill 9812 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4853763 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Memory Katuke, Jerome Moeroa, Aaron Magele, Reece Katuke and Kyszah Katuke to pay Invercargill Property Management Limited As Agent For Cherie & Christopher Frost $1,018.69 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord shall directly refund the tenant the over payment of rent paid of $61.43.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 (6467684-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Invercargill Property Management Limited As Agent For Cherie & Christopher Frost: $1,018.69 Memory Katuke, Jerome Moeroa, Aaron Magele, Reece Katuke and Kyszah Katuke: $901.31

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
When the tenancy came to an end there was an over payment of rent. The landlord shall reimburse the tenant 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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Although there was not a significant clean up required. The tenant accepted the amounts claimed. A discounted amount is awarded as agreed between the parties given one of the tradesmen left rubbish at the property.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: The glass window in the fireplace door broke.
The evidence is that when the tenant was putting the wood in the fire and closed the door the glass broke. Given the broken glass the fireplace was no longer able to be fixed and is non-compliant. However, this indicates that there was an issue with the fireplace, and I am not satisfied that the tenant should be responsible for this damage. There was no evidence of careless use. The damage is arguably fair wear and tear.
This claim is therefore dismissed.
The tenant filed a counterclaim. The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to fix the oven and fireplace.
However, there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that the landlord ignored the requests from the tenant to remedy such issues and the claim is dismissed.
Because Invercargill Property Management Limited As Agent For Cherie & Christopher Frost has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Order

Memory Katuke, Jerome Moeroa, Aaron Magele, Reece Katuke and Kyszah Katuke to pay Invercargill Property Management Limited As Agent For Cherie & Christopher Frost $1,018.69 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord shall directly refund the tenant the over payment of rent paid of $61.43.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 (6467684-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Invercargill Property Management Limited As Agent For Cherie & Christopher Frost: $1,018.69 Memory Katuke, Jerome Moeroa, Aaron Magele, Reece Katuke and Kyszah Katuke: $901.31

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
When the tenancy came to an end there was an over payment of rent. The landlord shall reimburse the tenant 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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Although there was not a significant clean up required. The tenant accepted the amounts claimed. A discounted amount is awarded as agreed between the parties given one of the tradesmen left rubbish at the property.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: The glass window in the fireplace door broke.
The evidence is that when the tenant was putting the wood in the fire and closed the door the glass broke. Given the broken glass the fireplace was no longer able to be fixed and is non-compliant. However, this indicates that there was an issue with the fireplace, and I am not satisfied that the tenant should be responsible for this damage. There was no evidence of careless use. The damage is arguably fair wear and tear.
This claim is therefore dismissed.
The tenant filed a counterclaim. The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to fix the oven and fireplace.
However, there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that the landlord ignored the requests from the tenant to remedy such issues and the claim is dismissed.
Because Invercargill Property Management Limited As Agent For Cherie & Christopher Frost has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4853763 — Tenancy dispute at 158 Ettrick Street, Appleby, Invercargill 9812

Tenancy Tribunal case 4853763 — Tenancy dispute at 158 Ettrick Street, Appleby, Invercargill 9812

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?

Property management

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?

Property management