How much money was awarded in case 4953853?

Drainage Unblocking: $356.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $466.05 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,220.43 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $187.68 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4953853?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4953853?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11220701-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4953853?

Drainage Unblocking: $356.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $466.05 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,220.43 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $187.68 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4953853?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4953853?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11220701-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

55 Donegal Park Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4953853 — Rent arrears

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4953853?

The tribunal order states: Sesimelia Allen, Emma Makoare and Peter Makoare to pay Firstlight Property

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4953853 — net $5,257.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 August 2024	$4,220.43	Rent arrears to 5 August 2024
Water rates	$187.68	Water rates
Miscellaneous repairs, lights chattels replacement, garage remote, as accepted by tenant	$466.05	Miscellaneous repairs, lights chattels replacement, garage remote, as accepted by tenant
Drainage unblocking	$356.50	Drainage unblocking
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,257.66
Bond	$5,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,257.66

Sesimelia Allen, Emma Makoare and Peter Makoare to pay Firstlight Property Management Limited As Agent For Zhuowei Jing & Jia Wei $5,257.66 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,520.00 (6274570-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Firstlight Property Management Limited As Agent For Zhuowei Jing & Jia Wei: $5,257.66 Sesimelia Allen, Emma Makoare and Peter Makoare: $262.34

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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 and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 5 August 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I am satisfied that the drains were blocked from the tenant’s children’s socks and toys.

The tenant accepts costs to replace kitchen light shade, door swipe card, vacuum cleaner accessories, wardrobe aluminium cloth rail, one garage remote control and ranchslider fly screen repairs.

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.

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: internal damage to returned garage remote control and laminated flooring. I do not consider the damage to the garage remote and flooring to be more than fair wear and tear.

In any event, I find that the tenant has disproved liability for the damage. The tenant has not damaged the remote control and flooring intentionally nor carelessly.

For those reasons, the landlord’s claims for $109.90 and insurance excess on the laminate flooring replacement fail. Has the landlord breached the tenant’s privacy and entered the premises unlawfully?

Sesimelia Allen claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice. The tenant also claims that the landlord has violated her privacy by taking photos of the vehicles parked on the premises.

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant. See sections 38(2), and 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching those obligations are an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Having heard from the landlord, I accept that proper notice has been given for the landlord entering the premises with the flooring tradesperson on 16 July at

30pm by email.

I also accept the landlord’s evidence that the property manager merely took photographs of the vehicle parked outside for concern for the wellbeing of dogs kept inside vehicles. In any event, I do not consider that the tenant has a right of privacy in respect of vehicles parked on the property in full view of others.

For those reasons, the tenant’s claim for “an acknowledgement” of the landlord having purportedly breached the tenancy agreement or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 fails. Conclusion

Only the above amounts set out in the table above are proved. The bond will be disbursed to the parties accordingly.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4953853 — net $5,257.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 August 2024	$4,220.43	Rent arrears to 5 August 2024
Water rates	$187.68	Water rates
Miscellaneous repairs, lights chattels replacement, garage remote, as accepted by tenant	$466.05	Miscellaneous repairs, lights chattels replacement, garage remote, as accepted by tenant
Drainage unblocking	$356.50	Drainage unblocking
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,257.66
Bond	$5,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,257.66

Order

Sesimelia Allen, Emma Makoare and Peter Makoare to pay Firstlight Property Management Limited As Agent For Zhuowei Jing & Jia Wei $5,257.66 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,520.00 (6274570-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Firstlight Property Management Limited As Agent For Zhuowei Jing & Jia Wei: $5,257.66 Sesimelia Allen, Emma Makoare and Peter Makoare: $262.34

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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 and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 5 August 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied that the drains were blocked from the tenant’s children’s socks and toys.
The tenant accepts costs to replace kitchen light shade, door swipe card, vacuum cleaner accessories, wardrobe aluminium cloth rail, one garage remote control and ranchslider fly screen repairs.
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.
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: internal damage to returned garage remote control and laminated flooring. I do not consider the damage to the garage remote and flooring to be more than fair wear and tear.
In any event, I find that the tenant has disproved liability for the damage. The tenant has not damaged the remote control and flooring intentionally nor carelessly.
For those reasons, the landlord’s claims for $109.90 and insurance excess on the laminate flooring replacement fail. Has the landlord breached the tenant’s privacy and entered the premises unlawfully?
Sesimelia Allen claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice. The tenant also claims that the landlord has violated her privacy by taking photos of the vehicles parked on the premises.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant. See sections 38(2), and 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching those obligations are an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Having heard from the landlord, I accept that proper notice has been given for the landlord entering the premises with the flooring tradesperson on 16 July at
30pm by email.
I also accept the landlord’s evidence that the property manager merely took photographs of the vehicle parked outside for concern for the wellbeing of dogs kept inside vehicles. In any event, I do not consider that the tenant has a right of privacy in respect of vehicles parked on the property in full view of others.
For those reasons, the tenant’s claim for “an acknowledgement” of the landlord having purportedly breached the tenancy agreement or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 fails. Conclusion
Only the above amounts set out in the table above are proved. The bond will be disbursed to the parties accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4953853 — Rent arrears at 55 Donegal Park Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4953853 — Rent arrears at 55 Donegal Park Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions