What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5017568?

The tribunal order states: Priscilla Elviria Ruth Pai must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent for

How much money was awarded in case 5017568?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $472.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $999.35 awarded to landlord; Reimburse Fixed Water Charges: $93.97 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $765.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $214.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $817.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5017568?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5017568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11194708-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5017568?

The tribunal order states: Priscilla Elviria Ruth Pai must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent for

How much money was awarded in case 5017568?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $472.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $999.35 awarded to landlord; Reimburse Fixed Water Charges: $93.97 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $765.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $214.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $817.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5017568?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5017568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11194708-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

103 Park Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5017568 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5017568 — net $521.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 November 2024	$765.71		Rent arrears to 11 November 2024
Outstanding Water rates	$817.75		Outstanding Water rates
Lock/key replacement	$472.00		Lock/key replacement
Wall repairs	$999.35		Wall repairs
Rubbish removal	$214.00		Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Reimburse fixed water charges		$93.97	Reimburse fixed water charges
Total award	$3,295.81	$93.97
Net award	$521.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$521.84

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.

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?

The Tribunal made an Order in application 4924353 on 6 August 2024 (“August Order”) for payment of rent and water rates outstanding at that date.

The landlord has taken steps to enforce that Order.

In these proceedings an Order was made on 25 October 2024 (“conditional Termination Order”) requiring that the tenant pay the weekly rent when due while she was given an opportunity to file a cross application. Under that Order the tenancy was to terminate if rent was not paid when due.

The terms of the conditional termination Order were breached and the tenant was evicted on 11 November 2024.

The landlord has provided rent records and Watercare invoices proving the amounts owed for the period between the August Order and the end of the tenancy. The final water charge was based on a manual reading at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord has noted that in completing the water rates reconciliation it became aware that the owners, who had previously managed the tenancy themselves, had included fixed water charges in the amounts recovered from the tenant. Fixed water charges are the landlord’s responsibility and a credit for those incorrect charges is made.

The landlord claims compensation for the cost of two execution warrants issued by the District Court, for enforcement of the August Order and of the conditional termination Order. As explained at the hearing those costs are automatically included by the District Court’s process when the landlord seeks to enforce an order through the District Court. I do not award it today to avoid potential duplication of the cost.

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.

Final inspection photographs provided by the landlord show that a significant quantity of rubbish was left by the tenant on vacating the property. The landlord claims compensation for the cost of buying a Flexibin which the owners used to collect and dispose of that rubbish. The claim is reasonable and I find it proved.

The keys were not returned at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has provided the locksmith’s invoice detailing the work that was required. A lock was replaced as it was damaged and another as it could not be rekeyed. That explains why the cost is high but I am satisfied it represents the actual loss incurred by the landlord through the tenant’s breach.

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.

Final inspection photographs show damage to the exterior cladding on the property and holes in internal walls. I am satisfied that the damage is more likely than not to have occurred during the tenancy and to be more than fair wear and tear.

The landlord has provided the repair invoice paid by the landlord which proves the loss. That claim is approved.

Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent for San and Lina Georgis has substantially succeeded with the claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5017568 — net $521.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 November 2024	$765.71		Rent arrears to 11 November 2024
Outstanding Water rates	$817.75		Outstanding Water rates
Lock/key replacement	$472.00		Lock/key replacement
Wall repairs	$999.35		Wall repairs
Rubbish removal	$214.00		Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Reimburse fixed water charges		$93.97	Reimburse fixed water charges
Total award	$3,295.81	$93.97
Net award	$521.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$521.84

Order

Priscilla Elviria Ruth Pai must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent for San and Lina Georgis $521.84 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,680.00 (3540054-010) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent for San and Lina Georgis immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
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?

The Tribunal made an Order in application 4924353 on 6 August 2024 (“August Order”) for payment of rent and water rates outstanding at that date.
The landlord has taken steps to enforce that Order.
In these proceedings an Order was made on 25 October 2024 (“conditional Termination Order”) requiring that the tenant pay the weekly rent when due while she was given an opportunity to file a cross application. Under that Order the tenancy was to terminate if rent was not paid when due.
The terms of the conditional termination Order were breached and the tenant was evicted on 11 November 2024.
The landlord has provided rent records and Watercare invoices proving the amounts owed for the period between the August Order and the end of the tenancy. The final water charge was based on a manual reading at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has noted that in completing the water rates reconciliation it became aware that the owners, who had previously managed the tenancy themselves, had included fixed water charges in the amounts recovered from the tenant. Fixed water charges are the landlord’s responsibility and a credit for those incorrect charges is made.
The landlord claims compensation for the cost of two execution warrants issued by the District Court, for enforcement of the August Order and of the conditional termination Order. As explained at the hearing those costs are automatically included by the District Court’s process when the landlord seeks to enforce an order through the District Court. I do not award it today to avoid potential duplication of the cost.

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.
Final inspection photographs provided by the landlord show that a significant quantity of rubbish was left by the tenant on vacating the property. The landlord claims compensation for the cost of buying a Flexibin which the owners used to collect and dispose of that rubbish. The claim is reasonable and I find it proved.
The keys were not returned at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has provided the locksmith’s invoice detailing the work that was required. A lock was replaced as it was damaged and another as it could not be rekeyed. That explains why the cost is high but I am satisfied it represents the actual loss incurred by the landlord through the tenant’s breach.

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.
Final inspection photographs show damage to the exterior cladding on the property and holes in internal walls. I am satisfied that the damage is more likely than not to have occurred during the tenancy and to be more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord has provided the repair invoice paid by the landlord which proves the loss. That claim is approved.
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent for San and Lina Georgis has substantially succeeded with the claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5017568 — Property damage at 103 Park Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5017568 — Property damage at 103 Park Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions