What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4857728?

The tribunal order states: Summer Brown and Barry Munns must pay Premier Rental Management

How much money was awarded in case 4857728?

Cleaning: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pipe Blockage: $134.99 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $628.27 awarded to landlord; Dining Table Leg: $155.25 awarded to landlord; Dishwasher Handle: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Floor Tile: $316.25 awarded to landlord; Replace Chattels: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat: $193.27 awarded to landlord; Utilities- Power, Gas, Water: $1,378.06 awarded to landlord; Wardrobe Door: $327.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4857728?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4857728?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10801846-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4857728?

The tribunal order states: Summer Brown and Barry Munns must pay Premier Rental Management

How much money was awarded in case 4857728?

Cleaning: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pipe Blockage: $134.99 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $628.27 awarded to landlord; Dining Table Leg: $155.25 awarded to landlord; Dishwasher Handle: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Floor Tile: $316.25 awarded to landlord; Replace Chattels: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat: $193.27 awarded to landlord; Utilities- Power, Gas, Water: $1,378.06 awarded to landlord; Wardrobe Door: $327.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4857728?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4857728?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10801846-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1108, 19 Anzac Avenue, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4857728 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4857728 — net $3,031.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$628.27	Rent arrears
Utilities- power, gas, water	$1,378.06	Utilities- power, gas, water
Cleaning	$690.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$207.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Insurance excess x 3	$750.00	Repairs: Insurance excess x 3
Wardrobe door	$327.75	Wardrobe door
Repairs: Kitchen floor tile	$316.25	Repairs: Kitchen floor tile
Toilet seat	$193.27	Toilet seat
Replace chattels	$200.00	Replace chattels
Repairs: Dining table leg	$155.25	Repairs: Dining table leg
Repairs: Dishwasher handle	$230.00	Repairs: Dishwasher handle
Pipe blockage	$134.99	Pipe blockage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,031.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,031.28

Summer Brown and Barry Munns must pay Premier Rental Management Limited And Zippi Property Management As Agent For Alfred Kit Chong Lee $3,031.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (6077039-005) to Premier Rental Management Limited And Zippi Property Management As Agent For Alfred Kit Chong Lee immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 6 September 2024. The tenant did not attend 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 and utilities?

The tenancy ended on 15 March 2024. The landlord provided rent records and utility invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $628.27 for rent and $1,378.06 for utilities (water, power, and gas).

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 and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided invoices for the work carried out and an extensive array of photos showing that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy and that rubbish needed to be removed.

Chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided photos of the chattels from the pre tenancy inspection and the post tenancy inspection where the chattels have been removed. The landlord claims $443.27 to replace the chattels. I have taken depreciation into account in setting compensation at $200.00.

The pipes leading from the dishwasher were blocked at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided a photo showing the debris in the bottom of the dishwasher. A plumber was called to unblock the pipes. The invoice provided is for 134.99.

The amounts ordered are proven.

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. The landlord is insured. The excess on the insurance policy is $500.00 on each and every claim.

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: Walls and doors were damaged and need to be repainted. The landlord was able to lodge a claim with his insurers. The actual costs for the repair work were $4,427.50. The claim was accepted, subject to an excess being applied to each claim. The tenant is to pay the insurance excess charged of $750.00 in total. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. A wardrobe door was damaged and had to be replaced at a cost of $327.75. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord said that the tenant had broken a tile on the kitchen floor when something was dropped on the floor. The invoice for repair is for $316.25. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The toilet seat and lid were damaged and had to be replaced. The invoice is for $193.27. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The leg of the dining table has been broken. The repair cost was $155.25. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The handle of the dishwasher was broken, and a replacement handle was $230.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

Photos of the damaged items and invoices were provided in evidence by the landlord.

The amounts ordered are proved.

As Premier Rental Management Limited And Zippi Property Management As Agent For Alfred Kit Chong Lee has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4857728 — net $3,031.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$628.27	Rent arrears
Utilities- power, gas, water	$1,378.06	Utilities- power, gas, water
Cleaning	$690.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$207.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Insurance excess x 3	$750.00	Repairs: Insurance excess x 3
Wardrobe door	$327.75	Wardrobe door
Repairs: Kitchen floor tile	$316.25	Repairs: Kitchen floor tile
Toilet seat	$193.27	Toilet seat
Replace chattels	$200.00	Replace chattels
Repairs: Dining table leg	$155.25	Repairs: Dining table leg
Repairs: Dishwasher handle	$230.00	Repairs: Dishwasher handle
Pipe blockage	$134.99	Pipe blockage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,031.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,031.28

Order

Summer Brown and Barry Munns must pay Premier Rental Management Limited And Zippi Property Management As Agent For Alfred Kit Chong Lee $3,031.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (6077039-005) to Premier Rental Management Limited And Zippi Property Management As Agent For Alfred Kit Chong Lee immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 6 September 2024. The tenant did not attend 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 and utilities?

The tenancy ended on 15 March 2024. The landlord provided rent records and utility invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $628.27 for rent and $1,378.06 for utilities (water, power, and gas).

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 and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided invoices for the work carried out and an extensive array of photos showing that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy and that rubbish needed to be removed.
Chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided photos of the chattels from the pre tenancy inspection and the post tenancy inspection where the chattels have been removed. The landlord claims $443.27 to replace the chattels. I have taken depreciation into account in setting compensation at $200.00.
The pipes leading from the dishwasher were blocked at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided a photo showing the debris in the bottom of the dishwasher. A plumber was called to unblock the pipes. The invoice provided is for 134.99.
The amounts ordered are proven.

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. The landlord is insured. The excess on the insurance policy is $500.00 on each and every claim.
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: Walls and doors were damaged and need to be repainted. The landlord was able to lodge a claim with his insurers. The actual costs for the repair work were $4,427.50. The claim was accepted, subject to an excess being applied to each claim. The tenant is to pay the insurance excess charged of $750.00 in total. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. A wardrobe door was damaged and had to be replaced at a cost of $327.75. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord said that the tenant had broken a tile on the kitchen floor when something was dropped on the floor. The invoice for repair is for $316.25. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The toilet seat and lid were damaged and had to be replaced. The invoice is for $193.27. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The leg of the dining table has been broken. The repair cost was $155.25. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The handle of the dishwasher was broken, and a replacement handle was $230.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Photos of the damaged items and invoices were provided in evidence by the landlord.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As Premier Rental Management Limited And Zippi Property Management As Agent For Alfred Kit Chong Lee has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4857728 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1108, 19 Anzac Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4857728 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1108, 19 Anzac Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and utilities?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and utilities?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions