What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4873200?

The tribunal order states: Max Hugo Bradley, Sam Tamariki Orchard Sparkes, Robert John Norris, Jack

How much money was awarded in case 4873200?

Cleaning: $480.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $498.93 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,488.57 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Freezer Bins: $202.17 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Television: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4873200?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4873200?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10591123-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4873200?

The tribunal order states: Max Hugo Bradley, Sam Tamariki Orchard Sparkes, Robert John Norris, Jack

How much money was awarded in case 4873200?

Cleaning: $480.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $498.93 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,488.57 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Freezer Bins: $202.17 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Television: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4873200?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4873200?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10591123-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

426A Adelaide Road, Berhampore, Wellington 6023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4873200 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4873200 — net $7,119.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28 January 2024	$9,488.57	Rent arrears to 28 January 2024
Cleaning	$480.25	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,100.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$498.93	Lock/key replacement
Replace missing television	$450.00	Replace missing television
Replace missing freezer bins	$202.17	Replace missing freezer bins
Compensation for wall repairs	$300.00	Compensation for wall repairs
Net award	$7,119.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,119.92

Order

Max Hugo Bradley, Sam Tamariki Orchard Sparkes, Robert John Norris, Jack Vincent Hirst and Matej Fadrny must pay NZ Property Agents Limited As Agent For Peco Investments Limited $7,119.92 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,400.00 (5237770-017) to NZ Property Agents Limited As Agent For Peco Investments Limited immediately.

Reasons

Mr Heeran attended the hearing in person to represent the landlord. Mr Sam Sparkes also attended in person and Mr Max Bradley attended by telephone. The remaining tenants, Mr Robert Norris, Mr Jack Hirst and Mr Matej Fadrny 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. Background
I am satisfied on the evidence, including the original tenancy agreement and several agreements to change tenants during the tenancy, that when the tenancy ended on 28 January 2024, the tenants named in the application and this order were the current tenants of the premises jointly and severally liable for their obligations under the tenancy agreement. All tenants remained jointly and severally liable for the tenancy despite several tenants moving out and ceasing to pay rent before the tenancy ended. It appears that some tenants had tried to arrange for replacement tenants to take over their obligations, but the required paperwork was never completed.
As discussed at the hearing, the orders for rent arrears and damages may be attributable to certain tenants. However, this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between tenants. If any of the tenants wishes to pursue other tenants for a contribution to the amounts awarded in this Tribunal, their remedy is to file a claim with the Disputes Tribunal.
The original tenancy agreement was for a fixed term starting on 18 February 2022 and ending on 12 February 2023. The tenancy was then renewed for a further fixed term to end on 11 February 2024. However, the parties agreed to early termination of the tenancy on 28 January 2024.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 28 January 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 (RTA).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish and belongings at the end of the tenancy as shown in photos produced in evidence at the hearing.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: Freezer bins, and a television. The landlord had to replace the freezer bins and intends to replace the television.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The amount quoted to replace the freezer bins was $404.35. The landlord says they have replaced the bins and were invoiced $464. However, they did not produce the invoice and seek the quoted amount. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the life of a fridge/freezer to be 8-10 years. The landlord gave evidence that the property was renovated, and new appliances installed in early 2019. Therefore, the freezer bins were about 5 years old. I have depreciated the replacement cost by 50% and awarded $202.17 which I consider is reasonable.
The landlord has not replaced the television but intends to do so. Mr Heeran produced the invoice paid when the television was purchased in early 2019. The original cost was $1,599.95 discounted at the time to $907.94. The landlord seeks to recover this amount. However, I note that a similar television currently retails for just under $900. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the life of a television to be 5-12 years. I consider a 10-year life for this appliance is reasonable. As it was 5 years old when the tenancy ended, I have depreciated the expected replacement costs by 50% and award $450 which I consider is reasonable.
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 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 hole cut into the hallway wall and major impact damage caused to the corner wall in the second bedroom. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The Landlord says that it has received a verbal quote of $450 to repair the damage. However, it has re-tenanted the property without repairing the damage as the current tenants do not wish to be disturbed by the work. It will be done when the tenants are away for holidays. Usually, a landlord is not entitled to recover compensation for damage that has not been repaired and/or for which there is no written evidence to confirm the quoted cost. However, I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy, and it is the landlord’s intention to repair. Therefore, I consider that the tenants should pay some compensation towards the deferred repair costs. Based on the photo evidence and in the absence of a written quote, I award $300 which I consider is fair and reasonable for the work.
The bond is refunded to the landlord in part payment of the awards against the tenants. K Stirling, 18 July 2024

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4873200 — net $7,119.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28 January 2024	$9,488.57	Rent arrears to 28 January 2024
Cleaning	$480.25	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,100.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$498.93	Lock/key replacement
Replace missing television	$450.00	Replace missing television
Replace missing freezer bins	$202.17	Replace missing freezer bins
Compensation for wall repairs	$300.00	Compensation for wall repairs
Net award	$7,119.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,119.92

Order

Max Hugo Bradley, Sam Tamariki Orchard Sparkes, Robert John Norris, Jack Vincent Hirst and Matej Fadrny must pay NZ Property Agents Limited As Agent For Peco Investments Limited $7,119.92 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,400.00 (5237770-017) to NZ Property Agents Limited As Agent For Peco Investments Limited immediately.

Reasons

Mr Heeran attended the hearing in person to represent the landlord. Mr Sam Sparkes also attended in person and Mr Max Bradley attended by telephone. The remaining tenants, Mr Robert Norris, Mr Jack Hirst and Mr Matej Fadrny 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. Background
I am satisfied on the evidence, including the original tenancy agreement and several agreements to change tenants during the tenancy, that when the tenancy ended on 28 January 2024, the tenants named in the application and this order were the current tenants of the premises jointly and severally liable for their obligations under the tenancy agreement. All tenants remained jointly and severally liable for the tenancy despite several tenants moving out and ceasing to pay rent before the tenancy ended. It appears that some tenants had tried to arrange for replacement tenants to take over their obligations, but the required paperwork was never completed.
As discussed at the hearing, the orders for rent arrears and damages may be attributable to certain tenants. However, this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between tenants. If any of the tenants wishes to pursue other tenants for a contribution to the amounts awarded in this Tribunal, their remedy is to file a claim with the Disputes Tribunal.
The original tenancy agreement was for a fixed term starting on 18 February 2022 and ending on 12 February 2023. The tenancy was then renewed for a further fixed term to end on 11 February 2024. However, the parties agreed to early termination of the tenancy on 28 January 2024.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 28 January 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 (RTA).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish and belongings at the end of the tenancy as shown in photos produced in evidence at the hearing.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: Freezer bins, and a television. The landlord had to replace the freezer bins and intends to replace the television.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The amount quoted to replace the freezer bins was $404.35. The landlord says they have replaced the bins and were invoiced $464. However, they did not produce the invoice and seek the quoted amount. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the life of a fridge/freezer to be 8-10 years. The landlord gave evidence that the property was renovated, and new appliances installed in early 2019. Therefore, the freezer bins were about 5 years old. I have depreciated the replacement cost by 50% and awarded $202.17 which I consider is reasonable.
The landlord has not replaced the television but intends to do so. Mr Heeran produced the invoice paid when the television was purchased in early 2019. The original cost was $1,599.95 discounted at the time to $907.94. The landlord seeks to recover this amount. However, I note that a similar television currently retails for just under $900. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the life of a television to be 5-12 years. I consider a 10-year life for this appliance is reasonable. As it was 5 years old when the tenancy ended, I have depreciated the expected replacement costs by 50% and award $450 which I consider is reasonable.
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 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 hole cut into the hallway wall and major impact damage caused to the corner wall in the second bedroom. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The Landlord says that it has received a verbal quote of $450 to repair the damage. However, it has re-tenanted the property without repairing the damage as the current tenants do not wish to be disturbed by the work. It will be done when the tenants are away for holidays. Usually, a landlord is not entitled to recover compensation for damage that has not been repaired and/or for which there is no written evidence to confirm the quoted cost. However, I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy, and it is the landlord’s intention to repair. Therefore, I consider that the tenants should pay some compensation towards the deferred repair costs. Based on the photo evidence and in the absence of a written quote, I award $300 which I consider is fair and reasonable for the work.
The bond is refunded to the landlord in part payment of the awards against the tenants. K Stirling, 18 July 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4873200 — Rent arrears at 426A Adelaide Road, Berhampore, Wellington 6023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4873200 — Rent arrears at 426A Adelaide Road, Berhampore, Wellington 6023

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