What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4862642?

The tribunal order states: James Robinson must pay Mills Gibbon & Co Ltd T/A First National Collective

How much money was awarded in case 4862642?

Cleaning: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Remote: $89.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,415.71 awarded to landlord; Window: $607.81 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $321.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4862642?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4862642?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10626536-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4862642?

The tribunal order states: James Robinson must pay Mills Gibbon & Co Ltd T/A First National Collective

How much money was awarded in case 4862642?

Cleaning: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Remote: $89.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,415.71 awarded to landlord; Window: $607.81 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $321.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4862642?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4862642?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10626536-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

33 Hamlet Street, Stratford, Stratford 4332 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4862642 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

33 Hamlet Street, Stratford, Stratford 4332 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4862642 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4862642 — net $2,695.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 April 2024	$2,415.71	Rent arrears to 5 April 2024
Cleaning	$280.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$321.50	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Window	$607.81	Repairs: Window
Heat pump remote	$89.90	Heat pump remote
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,695.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,695.36

Claims and awards for application 4862642 — net $2,695.36 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 5 April 2024

Amount: $2,415.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 5 April 2024

Cleaning

Amount: $280.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $321.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Repairs: Window

Amount: $607.81
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Window

Heat pump remote

Amount: $89.90
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Heat pump remote

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

James Robinson must pay Mills Gibbon & Co Ltd T/A First National Collective $2,695.36 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,040.00 (6008881-002) to Mills Gibbon & Co Ltd T/A First National Collective immediately.
The landlord’s claim for changing locks and holes in doors is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that Mills Gibbon & Co Ltd T/A First National Collective can be a landlord within the definition set out in the RTA for the purposes of this application. It has managed the property for the entire tenancy and has conducted all day to day management activities. It considers itself to be a landlord.

How much is owed for rent?

I heard how the tenancy ended on 5 April 2024. The landlord had two rent summaries for the hearing to prove the amount owing. Unfortunately, they had not been reconciled.
At the hearing the landlord attempted to do this. We discussed the figure due after considering all of the sums the tenant had paid throughout the tenancy, the rent increases as well as the start and end dates of the tenancy. I provided the landlord with the calculation I was able to undertake based on this information and asked for comment. It appeared the landlord was seeking just slightly too much at this stage.
When making this order I have reconsidered all of the information again, including the calculation done in the hearing. In that calculation I see a discrepancy in the dates that neither myself or the landlord noticed when discussing the calculation at the hearing.
I am satisfied that the rent summaries provided by the tenant does not seek too much rent from the tenant and award the sum claimed of $2,415.71.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. This is proven by photographs provided by the landlord taken at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord seeks $280 for cleaning and $321.50 for rubbish disposal. The sums claimed are supported by the evidence including receipts, invoices and photographs. The amounts ordered are proved.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord did not pursue this claim. It is dismissed.
A heat pump was installed during the course of the tenancy. I heard that the tenant did not leave behind the heat pump remote. I have no reason to doubt this. The landlord has replaced this at a cost of $89.90 and provided evidence of this. The amount ordered is 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: a. Broken dining room window b. Holes in 2 doors
In relation to the damage to the window this is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord did not claim for holes in walls, as set out on the application but did seek to claim for holes in doors. I heard this claim as the landlord was no longer pursuing the claim for holes in the walls, the amount was still within the amount claimed for damage to the walls and the damage is sufficiently similar.
However, I dismiss this claim because the landlord did not have an appropriate invoice to support its loss. The invoice that was provided for the repair of the doors did not itemise the work and included other work that the tenant is not responsible for. I cannot guess the amount charged to remedy the damage to the doors and the landlord could not provide me with an estimate either. This part of the claim is dismissed.
Because Mills Gibbon & Co Ltd T/A First National Collective has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4862642 — net $2,695.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 April 2024	$2,415.71	Rent arrears to 5 April 2024
Cleaning	$280.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$321.50	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Window	$607.81	Repairs: Window
Heat pump remote	$89.90	Heat pump remote
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,695.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,695.36

Claims and awards for application 4862642 — net $2,695.36 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 5 April 2024

Amount: $2,415.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 5 April 2024

Cleaning

Amount: $280.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $321.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Repairs: Window

Amount: $607.81
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Window

Heat pump remote

Amount: $89.90
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Heat pump remote

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

James Robinson must pay Mills Gibbon & Co Ltd T/A First National Collective $2,695.36 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,040.00 (6008881-002) to Mills Gibbon & Co Ltd T/A First National Collective immediately.
The landlord’s claim for changing locks and holes in doors is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that Mills Gibbon & Co Ltd T/A First National Collective can be a landlord within the definition set out in the RTA for the purposes of this application. It has managed the property for the entire tenancy and has conducted all day to day management activities. It considers itself to be a landlord.

How much is owed for rent?

I heard how the tenancy ended on 5 April 2024. The landlord had two rent summaries for the hearing to prove the amount owing. Unfortunately, they had not been reconciled.
At the hearing the landlord attempted to do this. We discussed the figure due after considering all of the sums the tenant had paid throughout the tenancy, the rent increases as well as the start and end dates of the tenancy. I provided the landlord with the calculation I was able to undertake based on this information and asked for comment. It appeared the landlord was seeking just slightly too much at this stage.
When making this order I have reconsidered all of the information again, including the calculation done in the hearing. In that calculation I see a discrepancy in the dates that neither myself or the landlord noticed when discussing the calculation at the hearing.
I am satisfied that the rent summaries provided by the tenant does not seek too much rent from the tenant and award the sum claimed of $2,415.71.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. This is proven by photographs provided by the landlord taken at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord seeks $280 for cleaning and $321.50 for rubbish disposal. The sums claimed are supported by the evidence including receipts, invoices and photographs. The amounts ordered are proved.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord did not pursue this claim. It is dismissed.
A heat pump was installed during the course of the tenancy. I heard that the tenant did not leave behind the heat pump remote. I have no reason to doubt this. The landlord has replaced this at a cost of $89.90 and provided evidence of this. The amount ordered is 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: a. Broken dining room window b. Holes in 2 doors
In relation to the damage to the window this is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord did not claim for holes in walls, as set out on the application but did seek to claim for holes in doors. I heard this claim as the landlord was no longer pursuing the claim for holes in the walls, the amount was still within the amount claimed for damage to the walls and the damage is sufficiently similar.
However, I dismiss this claim because the landlord did not have an appropriate invoice to support its loss. The invoice that was provided for the repair of the doors did not itemise the work and included other work that the tenant is not responsible for. I cannot guess the amount charged to remedy the damage to the doors and the landlord could not provide me with an estimate either. This part of the claim is dismissed.
Because Mills Gibbon & Co Ltd T/A First National Collective has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4862642 — Rent arrears at 33 Hamlet Street, Stratford, Stratford 4332

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4862642 — Rent arrears at 33 Hamlet Street, Stratford, Stratford 4332

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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?

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