What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4891946?

The tribunal order states: Kerry Totua must pay Hope Lillian Amy-Marree Peyroux and Dean Peyroux

How much money was awarded in case 4891946?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,400.00 awarded to landlord; Painting And Plastering: $1,090.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4891946?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4891946?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10698710-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4891946?

The tribunal order states: Kerry Totua must pay Hope Lillian Amy-Marree Peyroux and Dean Peyroux

How much money was awarded in case 4891946?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,400.00 awarded to landlord; Painting And Plastering: $1,090.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4891946?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4891946?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10698710-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

23 Shackleton Grove, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4891946 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

23 Shackleton Grove, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4891946 — 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 4891946 — net $5,791.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$7,400.00	Rent arrears
Repairs: painting and plastering	$1,090.65	Repairs: painting and plastering
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,791.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,791.09

Claims and awards for application 4891946 — net $5,791.09 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $7,400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Repairs: painting and plastering

Amount: $1,090.65
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: painting and plastering

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $5,791.09

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $5,791.09

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage

Order

Kerry Totua must pay Hope Lillian Amy-Marree Peyroux and Dean Peyroux $5,791.09 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (5198153-003) to Hope Lillian Amy-Marree Peyroux and Dean Peyroux immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant made no appearance and, after delaying the start of the hearing to allow for lateness, I decided to proceed in her 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.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 5 April 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. There had been 1 week arrears running to 17 January 2024, however from 25 January 2024 to the end of the tenancy no rent was paid. The Landlord gave three email notices of arrears, however, the tenant chose to leave the tenancy rather than pay the arrears. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven the arrears sought.

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.
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 tenancy had several arears where damage had occurred. The damage included: a. a hole punched in the wall of a bedroom; b. stab marks caused by a sharp object to a wall and door; c. a hole in the door of the sleep out which appeared to have been caused by someone kicking the door; and d. an area where paint and plaster were pulled away by bluetack or similar.
But for the last of these, the nature and location of the damage leads me to conclude that the damage was caused intentionally, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The area damaged by the bluetack or similar is fair wear and tear over a tenancy of three years. However, the damage was in the same bedroom where the wall was punched through, so the area would have repainted in any event, and did not increase the cost.
The landlord sought quotes and went with the most cost effective, spending $1090.65 for plastering and repainting.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.
Because Hope Lillian Amy-Marree Peyroux and Dean Peyroux have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse 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 4891946 — net $5,791.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$7,400.00	Rent arrears
Repairs: painting and plastering	$1,090.65	Repairs: painting and plastering
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,791.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,791.09

Claims and awards for application 4891946 — net $5,791.09 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $7,400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Repairs: painting and plastering

Amount: $1,090.65
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: painting and plastering

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $5,791.09

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $5,791.09

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage

Order

Kerry Totua must pay Hope Lillian Amy-Marree Peyroux and Dean Peyroux $5,791.09 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (5198153-003) to Hope Lillian Amy-Marree Peyroux and Dean Peyroux immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant made no appearance and, after delaying the start of the hearing to allow for lateness, I decided to proceed in her 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.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 5 April 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. There had been 1 week arrears running to 17 January 2024, however from 25 January 2024 to the end of the tenancy no rent was paid. The Landlord gave three email notices of arrears, however, the tenant chose to leave the tenancy rather than pay the arrears. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven the arrears sought.

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.
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 tenancy had several arears where damage had occurred. The damage included: a. a hole punched in the wall of a bedroom; b. stab marks caused by a sharp object to a wall and door; c. a hole in the door of the sleep out which appeared to have been caused by someone kicking the door; and d. an area where paint and plaster were pulled away by bluetack or similar.
But for the last of these, the nature and location of the damage leads me to conclude that the damage was caused intentionally, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The area damaged by the bluetack or similar is fair wear and tear over a tenancy of three years. However, the damage was in the same bedroom where the wall was punched through, so the area would have repainted in any event, and did not increase the cost.
The landlord sought quotes and went with the most cost effective, spending $1090.65 for plastering and repainting.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.
Because Hope Lillian Amy-Marree Peyroux and Dean Peyroux have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4891946 — Rent arrears at 23 Shackleton Grove, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4891946 — Rent arrears at 23 Shackleton Grove, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions