What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4922495 about?

The tribunal order states: Katherine Parish and Anthony Wilson must pay [The landlord/s] $3,230.03

How much money was awarded in case 4922495?

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 4922495?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4922495?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10919896-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4922495 about?

The tribunal order states: Katherine Parish and Anthony Wilson must pay [The landlord/s] $3,230.03

How much money was awarded in case 4922495?

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 4922495?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4922495?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10919896-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4922495 — Smoke alarms

Order

Katherine Parish and Anthony Wilson must pay [The landlord/s] $3,230.03 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 2 October 2024. The Tribunal was unable to contact the tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Service
The application was filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy so the usual service rules no longer apply.
The application must be served either personally on the tenant, on someone over the age of 16 living at address where the tenant now lives, or by post to an address provided by the tenant within two months before the application was made. See section 91A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The application has not been served in accordance with these requirements.
Section 91B RTA provides if notice of the hearing has not been carried out in accordance with s 91A(2) RTA, and the Tribunal is satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to serve the notice, then the Tribunal may dispense with the requirements for service and proceed as if the notice has been served in accordance with the RTA (see section 91B (2)(c) RTA).
The tenants had been in communication with the landlord by email as recently as 30 August 2024. That tenants’ email address has been used to give notice of this hearing. I am satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to serve the tenants with notice of these proceedings. I dispense with the requirement for service and proceed as if notice has been given.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy was ended by termination order and the tenant was evicted on 22 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) RTA.
The landlord proved on the evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: mattress, dryer, washing machine and smoke alarm. It was also noted that the bed base slats were broken.
Changing the locks was necessary on eviction to ensure the security of the premises.
The landlord sought recovery of the $200.00 fee paid to the bailiff on eviction. I explained to the landlord that eviction costs are added as part of the enforcement process through the District Court and that the Act does not generally enable the Tribunal to award enforcement costs. But given the landlord has indicated that they will not be pursing the remainder of the debt through the District Court enforcement process, I consider it reasonable and sensible to allow the cost.
The landlord relied on the property inspection report at the end of the tenancy, photographic evidence and invoices.
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.
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: the window was damaged, the shower door needed to be reattached, and the tenant painted the walls blue but did not finish in some areas. Additionally, there were holes in the wall that required repair, holes beneath the towel holder, and the wall heater was pulled off, leaving the brackets missing. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord again relied on the property inspection report at the end of the tenancy, photographic evidence and invoices.
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. As the property was essentially redecorated at the start, betterment and depreciation do not apply. Filing fee and suppression order
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee and grant suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4922495 — Smoke alarms

Tenancy Tribunal case 4922495 — Smoke alarms

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?

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?