What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4915893 about?

The tribunal order states: Jessica Katu and Nicholas John Cuff to pay [The landlord/s] $1,314.92 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4915893?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4915893?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4915893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10799472-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4915893 about?

The tribunal order states: Jessica Katu and Nicholas John Cuff to pay [The landlord/s] $1,314.92 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4915893?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4915893?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4915893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10799472-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

14 Alleyne Court, Brown Owl, Upper Hutt 5018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4915893 — Rent arrears

Order

Jessica Katu and Nicholas John Cuff to pay [The landlord/s] $1,314.92 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,314.92 Jessica Katu and Nicholas John Cuff: $2,085.08

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Katu arrived late and was asked to leave because she kept interrupting.
The tenants’ application is for the bond. Their application is dismissed, but this will not affect their claim because the balance of the bond will be refunded to them.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The claims for cleaning and carpet cleaning were withdrawn at the hearing.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 28 April 2024, a day later than agreed. The last week’s rent to 28 April has not been paid. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. This claim is proved and allowed.

Did the tenants 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 tenants did not return the keys on 28 April and the owner has had the front and back door locks changed. Not returning the keys on the last day would usually mean the tenants paying for a change of locks. The tenant noted that the invoice is not itemised, does not identify an address and is dated 10 May - almost two weeks later. I find the landlord has not proved the claim for replacement keys and it is dismissed.

Are the tenants 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. See section 49B(3)(a) 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 landlord provided the ingoing inspection report and outgoing reports with photos. The following damage was caused during the tenancy: • two doors had holes and a door handle set was missing • one room was half painted with dark blue paint • there were blue paint spots on a ceiling.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord has claimed the cost of materials for the repairs. I have been provided with receipts that total $444.48. I accept that some of the materials purchased could be used for other purposes, but because no labour has been claimed I am satisfied the total amount claimed for the repairs is reasonable. This claim is proved and allowed. Other orders
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed. The tenants’ application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest in names when the tenants are ordered to pay money. See section 95A RTA.

Order

Jessica Katu and Nicholas John Cuff to pay [The landlord/s] $1,314.92 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,314.92 Jessica Katu and Nicholas John Cuff: $2,085.08

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Katu arrived late and was asked to leave because she kept interrupting.
The tenants’ application is for the bond. Their application is dismissed, but this will not affect their claim because the balance of the bond will be refunded to them.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The claims for cleaning and carpet cleaning were withdrawn at the hearing.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 28 April 2024, a day later than agreed. The last week’s rent to 28 April has not been paid. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. This claim is proved and allowed.

Did the tenants 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 tenants did not return the keys on 28 April and the owner has had the front and back door locks changed. Not returning the keys on the last day would usually mean the tenants paying for a change of locks. The tenant noted that the invoice is not itemised, does not identify an address and is dated 10 May - almost two weeks later. I find the landlord has not proved the claim for replacement keys and it is dismissed.

Are the tenants 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. See section 49B(3)(a) 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 landlord provided the ingoing inspection report and outgoing reports with photos. The following damage was caused during the tenancy: • two doors had holes and a door handle set was missing • one room was half painted with dark blue paint • there were blue paint spots on a ceiling.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord has claimed the cost of materials for the repairs. I have been provided with receipts that total $444.48. I accept that some of the materials purchased could be used for other purposes, but because no labour has been claimed I am satisfied the total amount claimed for the repairs is reasonable. This claim is proved and allowed. Other orders
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed. The tenants’ application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest in names when the tenants are ordered to pay money. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4915893 — Rent arrears at 14 Alleyne Court, Brown Owl, Upper Hutt 5018

Tenancy Tribunal case 4915893 — Rent arrears at 14 Alleyne Court, Brown Owl, Upper Hutt 5018

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?