What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5022928?

The tribunal order states: Fale Fili, Talaitupu Fili and Fomai Tuaua must pay Haron & Co Limited $2,229.00

How much money was awarded in case 5022928?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5022928?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5022928?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12030245-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5022928?

The tribunal order states: Fale Fili, Talaitupu Fili and Fomai Tuaua must pay Haron & Co Limited $2,229.00

How much money was awarded in case 5022928?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5022928?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5022928?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12030245-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Lynette Place, Mangere, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5022928 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5022928 — net $2,229.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$322.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,380.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,229.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,229.00

Order

Fale Fili, Talaitupu Fili and Fomai Tuaua must pay Haron & Co Limited $2,229.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The background to this matter is that the tenants have been in occupation of the premises since at least early 2020. The tenancy the subject of this application began in that year when the property was acquired by the landlord, but it seems the tenants had been in occupation prior to that.
In February 2024, Mr and Mrs Fili moved to Australia. They stopped paying rent and by June, the rent arrears were well over $10,000. There had been no notice bringing the tenancy to an end. The remaining party to the application, Mr Tuaua, is their son. He said he did not live at the premises.
He had always been the point of contact between the landlord and his parents, who speak little English.
In June 2024 there was a hearing where the landlord sought termination. This was granted. There was no appearance by any tenant but the adjudicator recorded in her decision:
The tenant contacted the Tribunal in the morning requesting an adjournment because they did not feel well. They were advised at midday that the hearing would not be adjourned. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Mr Tuaua, who appeared for all the tenants today, confirmed that it was he who had sought that adjournment.
Mr Tuaua claimed today that he did not live at the property and initially submitted he had not agreed to be party to the tenancy agreement either. He then accepted liability as a tenant and took that argument no further. As was pointed out by the landlord, at the June 2024 hearing, he had not on that occasion pointed out to the Tribunal that he was not a tenant.
The copy of the agreement submitted by the landlord had his name on it but had not been signed by any other party. Given Mr Tuaua’s acceptance that he was liable as a tenant I find he was indeed a party to the tenancy.

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

At the end of the tenancy a 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 tenant did not return the keys.
The tenant said he came back to clean further after the exit photos were taken. These showed the property to be in a very messy and in places dirty condition. I accept the landlord’s evidence given at the hearing that the photos depict the overall condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. I find in favour of the landlord in regard to the claim for cleaning and replacement locks, as I also accept the keys were not returned to the landlord.
The photos show an enormous amount of rubbish left behind, in the form of old mattresses and the like, as may be expected to have accumulated in a long term tenancy.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
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.
I was not provided with adequate evidence in support of this aspect of the claim. I have photos showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, but only a few photos of the property when the owner originally acquired it in 2020. I need to be satisfied that the alleged damage was caused by these tenants and I am not.
As to the broken glass in the lounge I accept the tenant’s evidence that there was an existing small crack. Regarding the windows that were damaged I accept they were damaged in a storm.
The house itself looks to have a shabby and tired interior. I consider that the various other damages fall into the wear and tear category. However, I am not satisfied that the alleged damage here was caused by these tenants anyway. This aspect of the claim fails.
Because Haron & Co Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5022928 — net $2,229.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$322.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,380.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,229.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,229.00

Order

Fale Fili, Talaitupu Fili and Fomai Tuaua must pay Haron & Co Limited $2,229.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The background to this matter is that the tenants have been in occupation of the premises since at least early 2020. The tenancy the subject of this application began in that year when the property was acquired by the landlord, but it seems the tenants had been in occupation prior to that.
In February 2024, Mr and Mrs Fili moved to Australia. They stopped paying rent and by June, the rent arrears were well over $10,000. There had been no notice bringing the tenancy to an end. The remaining party to the application, Mr Tuaua, is their son. He said he did not live at the premises.
He had always been the point of contact between the landlord and his parents, who speak little English.
In June 2024 there was a hearing where the landlord sought termination. This was granted. There was no appearance by any tenant but the adjudicator recorded in her decision:
The tenant contacted the Tribunal in the morning requesting an adjournment because they did not feel well. They were advised at midday that the hearing would not be adjourned. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Mr Tuaua, who appeared for all the tenants today, confirmed that it was he who had sought that adjournment.
Mr Tuaua claimed today that he did not live at the property and initially submitted he had not agreed to be party to the tenancy agreement either. He then accepted liability as a tenant and took that argument no further. As was pointed out by the landlord, at the June 2024 hearing, he had not on that occasion pointed out to the Tribunal that he was not a tenant.
The copy of the agreement submitted by the landlord had his name on it but had not been signed by any other party. Given Mr Tuaua’s acceptance that he was liable as a tenant I find he was indeed a party to the tenancy.

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

At the end of the tenancy a 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 tenant did not return the keys.
The tenant said he came back to clean further after the exit photos were taken. These showed the property to be in a very messy and in places dirty condition. I accept the landlord’s evidence given at the hearing that the photos depict the overall condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. I find in favour of the landlord in regard to the claim for cleaning and replacement locks, as I also accept the keys were not returned to the landlord.
The photos show an enormous amount of rubbish left behind, in the form of old mattresses and the like, as may be expected to have accumulated in a long term tenancy.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
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.
I was not provided with adequate evidence in support of this aspect of the claim. I have photos showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, but only a few photos of the property when the owner originally acquired it in 2020. I need to be satisfied that the alleged damage was caused by these tenants and I am not.
As to the broken glass in the lounge I accept the tenant’s evidence that there was an existing small crack. Regarding the windows that were damaged I accept they were damaged in a storm.
The house itself looks to have a shabby and tired interior. I consider that the various other damages fall into the wear and tear category. However, I am not satisfied that the alleged damage here was caused by these tenants anyway. This aspect of the claim fails.
Because Haron & Co Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5022928 — Cleanliness at 24 Lynette Place, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5022928 — Cleanliness at 24 Lynette Place, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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