What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4891920?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Holly Parlane at 18 Gilletta Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

How much money was awarded in case 4891920?

Broken Lamp: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $576.20 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,022.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4891920?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4891920?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10649656-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4891920?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Holly Parlane at 18 Gilletta Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

How much money was awarded in case 4891920?

Broken Lamp: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $576.20 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,022.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4891920?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4891920?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10649656-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

18 Gilletta Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4891920 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4891920 — net $5,609.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$8,022.84	Rent arrears
Broken Lamp	$80.00	t of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The tenant is ordered to pay $80.00.
Window repairs	$576.20	Window repairs
Lawns and Garden work	$50.00	Lawns and Garden work
Net award	$5,609.04
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,609.04

Order

The tenancy of Holly Parlane at 18 Gilletta Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 is terminated, and possession is granted to Gavin Cooper, at 10.00 am on Tuesday 6 August 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 (3392885-003) to Gavin Cooper immediately.
Holly Parlane must pay Gavin Cooper $5,609.04 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
All other applications were withdrawn.

Reasons

The landlord attended this video hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by way of Teams. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. All calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given.
The history of this matter requires a brief explanation. The matter was set down to be heard on 30 July 2024. On the morning of the hearing, the tenant applied for an adjournment. That application was granted. The matter was able to be set down to be heard the next day. Tenancy Services made contact with the tenant. The tenant said that she may or may not be able to attend the hearing, but that she would provide written evidence for consideration by the Tribunal. That information was received this morning and served on the landlord. I have considered the tenant evidence in coming to my decision in this matter.
Much of the evidence relates to a cross application by the tenant. I have not received that cross application at the time of the hearing. Given that the landlord application was filed more than two months ago, it would be unusual for a cross application filed at this late stage to be heard contemporaneously. That does not mean that the tenant cross application can’t be heard by the Tribunal. It means that it could not be heard today.
The tenant having been given notice of this hearing and having provided the Tribunal with a statement and evidence, I consider that it was appropriate to proceed with the hearing today.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, compensation and refund of the bond.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy will be $8,022.84.

Did the tenant comply with their obligation?

The tenant must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. This does not mean spotless. Photos of the exterior of the premises indicate that the gardens and lawns are far from reasonably clean and tidy. They are overgrown and do not appear to have been attended to for some months. See section 40(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord seeks $50.00 for having the lawns and gardens brought up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. I consider the claim, in light of the condition in the photos, to be more that reasonable.

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. The landlord does not have insurance for tenant damage and this is recorded in the Tenancy Agreement.
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: Broken lamp-The landlord discovered the lamp on the floor. The lamp was purchased for $100.00 in 2018. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. 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 tenant is ordered to pay $80.00. Hardwood floors- this claim was withdrawn by the landlord. Windows- windows in the kitchen and bedroom were broken. The tenant said that the window in the kitchen were broken in a storm. Where the weather is likely to be severe, it would be reasonable for a tenant to close the window. The window was not closed and was broken.
The landlord said that the tenant accepted having broken the window in the bedroom by opening or closing it too forcefully. An estimate for repair of $576.20 was provided from Auckland Glass. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The claim is reasonable.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4891920 — net $5,609.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$8,022.84	Rent arrears
Broken Lamp	$80.00	t of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The tenant is ordered to pay $80.00.
Window repairs	$576.20	Window repairs
Lawns and Garden work	$50.00	Lawns and Garden work
Net award	$5,609.04
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,609.04

Order

The tenancy of Holly Parlane at 18 Gilletta Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 is terminated, and possession is granted to Gavin Cooper, at 10.00 am on Tuesday 6 August 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 (3392885-003) to Gavin Cooper immediately.
Holly Parlane must pay Gavin Cooper $5,609.04 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
All other applications were withdrawn.

Reasons

The landlord attended this video hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by way of Teams. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. All calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given.
The history of this matter requires a brief explanation. The matter was set down to be heard on 30 July 2024. On the morning of the hearing, the tenant applied for an adjournment. That application was granted. The matter was able to be set down to be heard the next day. Tenancy Services made contact with the tenant. The tenant said that she may or may not be able to attend the hearing, but that she would provide written evidence for consideration by the Tribunal. That information was received this morning and served on the landlord. I have considered the tenant evidence in coming to my decision in this matter.
Much of the evidence relates to a cross application by the tenant. I have not received that cross application at the time of the hearing. Given that the landlord application was filed more than two months ago, it would be unusual for a cross application filed at this late stage to be heard contemporaneously. That does not mean that the tenant cross application can’t be heard by the Tribunal. It means that it could not be heard today.
The tenant having been given notice of this hearing and having provided the Tribunal with a statement and evidence, I consider that it was appropriate to proceed with the hearing today.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, compensation and refund of the bond.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy will be $8,022.84.

Did the tenant comply with their obligation?

The tenant must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. This does not mean spotless. Photos of the exterior of the premises indicate that the gardens and lawns are far from reasonably clean and tidy. They are overgrown and do not appear to have been attended to for some months. See section 40(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord seeks $50.00 for having the lawns and gardens brought up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. I consider the claim, in light of the condition in the photos, to be more that reasonable.

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. The landlord does not have insurance for tenant damage and this is recorded in the Tenancy Agreement.
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: Broken lamp-The landlord discovered the lamp on the floor. The lamp was purchased for $100.00 in 2018. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. 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 tenant is ordered to pay $80.00. Hardwood floors- this claim was withdrawn by the landlord. Windows- windows in the kitchen and bedroom were broken. The tenant said that the window in the kitchen were broken in a storm. Where the weather is likely to be severe, it would be reasonable for a tenant to close the window. The window was not closed and was broken.
The landlord said that the tenant accepted having broken the window in the bedroom by opening or closing it too forcefully. An estimate for repair of $576.20 was provided from Auckland Glass. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The claim is reasonable.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4891920 — Rent arrears at 18 Gilletta Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4891920 — Rent arrears at 18 Gilletta Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligation?

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

Did the tenant comply with their obligation?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions