What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4909819 about?

The tribunal order states: Jemma Dawn Joyce and Thomas William Dean must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4909819?

Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity (July: $55.80 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Hob Installation: $258.00 awarded to landlord; Hot Water (July: $22.98 awarded to landlord; Rent And Utilities Arrears: $7,829.92 awarded to landlord; Replace Hob: $336.19 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4909819?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4909819?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10755673-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4909819 about?

The tribunal order states: Jemma Dawn Joyce and Thomas William Dean must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4909819?

Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity (July: $55.80 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Hob Installation: $258.00 awarded to landlord; Hot Water (July: $22.98 awarded to landlord; Rent And Utilities Arrears: $7,829.92 awarded to landlord; Replace Hob: $336.19 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4909819?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4909819?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10755673-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Apartment 1312, 1 Courthouse Lane, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4909819 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4909819 — net $6,173.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent and utilities arrears	$7,829.92	Rent and utilities arrears
Hot Water (July	$22.98	Hot Water (July
Electricity (July	$55.80	Electricity (July
Replace hob	$336.19	Replace hob
Hob installation	$258.00	Hob installation
Cleaning	$650.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,173.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,173.33

Order

Jemma Dawn Joyce and Thomas William Dean must pay [The landlord/s] $6,173.33 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The liability of Thomas William Dean under this Order is limited to the sum of $2,861.39, being rent and outgoings owed as at 4 June 2024 plus compensation for damage, cleaning costs and the filing fee. The landlords have released Mr Dean from liability for rent and utilities from, 4 June 2024.

Reasons

The landlord appeared attended the hearing by telephone represented by [one of the landlords]. Unsuccessful attempts were made to contact each of the tenants by phone.
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?

This was a fixed term tenancy for a term from 3 February 2024 to 2 August 2024.
The tenants entered into the tenancy agreement jointly, so they have joint and several liability for any and all obligations owed by them under the tenancy. However, Mr. Dean requested that he be released from the tenancy from 4 June 2024 and the landlords agreed to that, so they accept they cannot recover from Mr Dean any rent or utility charges owed from that date.
The landlords’ evidence is that on multiple occasions they attempted to contact Ms Joyce too, her find out her intentions with regard to the ongoing tenancy, but were unable to do so. They therefore claim a rent and utility charges to the end of the fixed term.
In the absence of any evidence from the tenants to the contrary, the evidence from the landlords satisfies me that reasonable steps were taken to try and mitigate the situation in terms of their obligations under s. 49 RTA but they were unable to do much more in the absence of any communication from Ms Joyce.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The rent summary includes charges for utilities through to June 2024.
The landlord has provided copies of the utilities invoices for July. I have some concern that the electrical invoice for July is over $300.00 during a time when I understand, neither of the tenants was occupying the premises. There seems to be a possibility that those electrical charges resulted from work being done on the premises for the landlords’ benefit. I have included electrical charges for July at the same amount as for the previous billing period.

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.
Photographs provided by the landlord show that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. An invoice has been provided showing that the landlord paid $768.00 to have the premises cleaned.
The tenants’ obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, which they did not do, but not to leave it “market ready” for a new tenant to move in. Taking that into account I award compensation in a slightly lesser sum than the amount of the cleaning invoice paid by the landlords.

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.
Photographs shows that the cook top at the premises was damaged during the tenancy. I accept the landlords’ evidence that the damage was such that the cook top had to be replaced. The cook top was new at the start of the tenancy and so no allowance for depreciation is appropriate. The landlord has provided evidence of the replacement cost and also of the cost for it to be installed. The installation invoice includes time spent by the electrician checking other appliances. An estimate of the time involved with that additional work, which is the landlords’ responsibility, has been deducted in calculating the compensation amount.
On 31 May 2024 the landlords were informed by the body corporate manager that, “I was just informed by the police officer at the desk that they had to force their way into apartment 1312. They mentioned having a key from Jemma Joyce, but found the doors barricaded from the inside. They have arrested one male individual from the apartment, and unfortunately, they have also damaged the door in the process. Please come on site to review. I've attached the photos for reference and the condition for apartment is terrible.”
The landlords have no further information about the background to the police forced entry into the premises. The landlords have requested compensation from the police but have been advised, “As per our previous conversation on the phone, for the reasons I've explained at length, police will not be covering the damage to the door to the property 1312/ 1 Courthouse Lane Auckland CBD. The attending constable used reasonable force and had invoked a warrantless search power, pursuant to Section 8 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 to force entry and arrest a wanted individual. As mentioned during our conversation over the phone, my advice would be to seek the cost of repair of the door through the tenant and / or the Tenancy Tribunal.”
It is not apparent what provision of the RTA it was thought would apply.
Section 49A RTA provides: “Except as provided in section 49B, a tenant has no liability or obligation, and must not be required, to— (a) meet the cost of making good any destruction of, or damage to, the premises; or (b) indemnify the landlord against the cost of making good the destruction or damage; or (c) pay damages related to the destruction or damage; or (d) carry out any works to make good the destruction or damage.”
In terms of section 49B, “ (1) A tenant is not excused from liability or obligation by section 49A(1) if, and to the extent that,— (a) the destruction or damage was intentionally done or caused by the tenant or by a person for whose actions the tenant is responsible under section 41 or 66L; or (b) the destruction or damage was the result of an act or omission by the tenant or by a person for whose actions the tenant is responsible under section 41 or 66L and the act or omission occurred on or about the premises and constitutes an imprisonable offence. (2) To the extent provided in subsection (3), the tenant is liable to the landlord for destruction of, or damage to, the premises that is caused by a careless act or omission of the tenant or of a person for whose actions the tenant is responsible under section 41 or 66L, other than an act or omission described in subsection (1).”
There evidence does not prove that the damage resulted from an imprisonable offence having been committed on the premises or that the tenants otherwise committed an unlawful act linked to the damage caused by the police on entering the premises.
The evidence does not prove that the damage occurred in any of the circumstances in section 40(2) RTA or that the damage was caused by persons at the premises with the tenants’ permission in terms of section 41. That being so, I do not find a basis proved for requiring the tenants to compensate the landlord for damage done by the forcible entry into the premises by the police.
I note that the landlord is yet to explore whether the cost of the repair is claimable under the landlords’ insurance.
Because [The applicant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4909819 — net $6,173.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent and utilities arrears	$7,829.92	Rent and utilities arrears
Hot Water (July	$22.98	Hot Water (July
Electricity (July	$55.80	Electricity (July
Replace hob	$336.19	Replace hob
Hob installation	$258.00	Hob installation
Cleaning	$650.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,173.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,173.33

Order

Jemma Dawn Joyce and Thomas William Dean must pay [The landlord/s] $6,173.33 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The liability of Thomas William Dean under this Order is limited to the sum of $2,861.39, being rent and outgoings owed as at 4 June 2024 plus compensation for damage, cleaning costs and the filing fee. The landlords have released Mr Dean from liability for rent and utilities from, 4 June 2024.

Reasons

The landlord appeared attended the hearing by telephone represented by [one of the landlords]. Unsuccessful attempts were made to contact each of the tenants by phone.
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?

This was a fixed term tenancy for a term from 3 February 2024 to 2 August 2024.
The tenants entered into the tenancy agreement jointly, so they have joint and several liability for any and all obligations owed by them under the tenancy. However, Mr. Dean requested that he be released from the tenancy from 4 June 2024 and the landlords agreed to that, so they accept they cannot recover from Mr Dean any rent or utility charges owed from that date.
The landlords’ evidence is that on multiple occasions they attempted to contact Ms Joyce too, her find out her intentions with regard to the ongoing tenancy, but were unable to do so. They therefore claim a rent and utility charges to the end of the fixed term.
In the absence of any evidence from the tenants to the contrary, the evidence from the landlords satisfies me that reasonable steps were taken to try and mitigate the situation in terms of their obligations under s. 49 RTA but they were unable to do much more in the absence of any communication from Ms Joyce.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The rent summary includes charges for utilities through to June 2024.
The landlord has provided copies of the utilities invoices for July. I have some concern that the electrical invoice for July is over $300.00 during a time when I understand, neither of the tenants was occupying the premises. There seems to be a possibility that those electrical charges resulted from work being done on the premises for the landlords’ benefit. I have included electrical charges for July at the same amount as for the previous billing period.

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.
Photographs provided by the landlord show that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. An invoice has been provided showing that the landlord paid $768.00 to have the premises cleaned.
The tenants’ obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, which they did not do, but not to leave it “market ready” for a new tenant to move in. Taking that into account I award compensation in a slightly lesser sum than the amount of the cleaning invoice paid by the landlords.

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.
Photographs shows that the cook top at the premises was damaged during the tenancy. I accept the landlords’ evidence that the damage was such that the cook top had to be replaced. The cook top was new at the start of the tenancy and so no allowance for depreciation is appropriate. The landlord has provided evidence of the replacement cost and also of the cost for it to be installed. The installation invoice includes time spent by the electrician checking other appliances. An estimate of the time involved with that additional work, which is the landlords’ responsibility, has been deducted in calculating the compensation amount.
On 31 May 2024 the landlords were informed by the body corporate manager that, “I was just informed by the police officer at the desk that they had to force their way into apartment 1312. They mentioned having a key from Jemma Joyce, but found the doors barricaded from the inside. They have arrested one male individual from the apartment, and unfortunately, they have also damaged the door in the process. Please come on site to review. I've attached the photos for reference and the condition for apartment is terrible.”
The landlords have no further information about the background to the police forced entry into the premises. The landlords have requested compensation from the police but have been advised, “As per our previous conversation on the phone, for the reasons I've explained at length, police will not be covering the damage to the door to the property 1312/ 1 Courthouse Lane Auckland CBD. The attending constable used reasonable force and had invoked a warrantless search power, pursuant to Section 8 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 to force entry and arrest a wanted individual. As mentioned during our conversation over the phone, my advice would be to seek the cost of repair of the door through the tenant and / or the Tenancy Tribunal.”
It is not apparent what provision of the RTA it was thought would apply.
Section 49A RTA provides: “Except as provided in section 49B, a tenant has no liability or obligation, and must not be required, to— (a) meet the cost of making good any destruction of, or damage to, the premises; or (b) indemnify the landlord against the cost of making good the destruction or damage; or (c) pay damages related to the destruction or damage; or (d) carry out any works to make good the destruction or damage.”
In terms of section 49B, “ (1) A tenant is not excused from liability or obligation by section 49A(1) if, and to the extent that,— (a) the destruction or damage was intentionally done or caused by the tenant or by a person for whose actions the tenant is responsible under section 41 or 66L; or (b) the destruction or damage was the result of an act or omission by the tenant or by a person for whose actions the tenant is responsible under section 41 or 66L and the act or omission occurred on or about the premises and constitutes an imprisonable offence. (2) To the extent provided in subsection (3), the tenant is liable to the landlord for destruction of, or damage to, the premises that is caused by a careless act or omission of the tenant or of a person for whose actions the tenant is responsible under section 41 or 66L, other than an act or omission described in subsection (1).”
There evidence does not prove that the damage resulted from an imprisonable offence having been committed on the premises or that the tenants otherwise committed an unlawful act linked to the damage caused by the police on entering the premises.
The evidence does not prove that the damage occurred in any of the circumstances in section 40(2) RTA or that the damage was caused by persons at the premises with the tenants’ permission in terms of section 41. That being so, I do not find a basis proved for requiring the tenants to compensate the landlord for damage done by the forcible entry into the premises by the police.
I note that the landlord is yet to explore whether the cost of the repair is claimable under the landlords’ insurance.
Because [The applicant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4909819 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Apartment 1312, 1 Courthouse Lane, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4909819 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Apartment 1312, 1 Courthouse Lane, Auckland

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

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

Frequently asked questions