Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4975238 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 5, 121 Trafalgar Street, Nelson, Nelson 7010
Decided 29 Nov 2024 · Published 29 Nov 2024 · Application 4975238
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
Order
- Jose Karl Pirikahu must pay Snow Holdings 1989 Limited $7,367.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
- Application 4976813 is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the first hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant at the second, continuation heating.
- 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 tenant had an application lodged via a lawyer on a pro-bono basis. By the date of the first hearing the application appeared moot. Further, counsel did not have instructions to continue with the application and the tenant did not prosecute his claim. This application was therefore dismissed.
How much is owed for rent?
- The tenancy ended on 22 August 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. This was reviewed at the first hearing with both parties and accepted. There is a prior monetary order against the tenant for this tenancy. It is presently under enforcement action.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations, during and 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.
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The hearing had been adjourned to allow the landlord to complete the vacated exit clean, after allowing the tenant an opportunity first to remove the large amount of items. He did not. That left the landlord with a considerable task. The premises remains empty while further remedial action or repairs are completed.
- The landlord provided a series of photographs that show the two-bedroom apartment extremely cluttered throughout. To deem the tenant a hoarder based on the clutter and items left would not be unfair. The time keeping of the landlord for the hours of effort in removing all of the items came to 117 hours. This is a considerable effort. However, the task was considerable. The premises is accessed via two flights of stairs with limited external areas for handling the contents removed, due to its CBD location. This meant skip bins could not be used. The landlord mitigated the effort and cost by using charity shops and recycling centres for free offloading where possible. After that, there remained a further six trailer loads to be loaded and taken to the waste disposal centre. Invoices were provided for these.
- A profession contractor was engaged to remove several larger items beyond the capabilities of the landlord and his helpers. The invoice for this was $456.98. The dumping fees totalled $669.97. The labour time is accepted but I reduce the hourly rate from the $50.00 sought to $30.00, a total of $3,510.00. I have allowed $200.00 for travel costs. The sum of these comes to $4,836.95 and is this is awarded.
- There were six fire alarm callouts during a three-month period. This was curious as there had not been such a problem during the lengthy preceding period of the tenancy. Each incident was reviewed at the first hearing with the tenant. Bases on the timeline these occurred while he was away and had rented out some of the premises. The persons there were aware of the issue and costs. They, and such costs, remained his responsibility. One invoice was adjusted down by $34.50 to account for a battery change done during the call- out. The invoices (and as adjusted) total $2,443.60 and are awarded.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- A claim for compensation for a broken glass door at the main entrance to the building was dismissed. That was caused by a non-related party and subject police action. The tenant is not liable. Filing fee
- Because Snow Holdings 1989 Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.