What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5033574 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5033574?

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 5033574?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5033574?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11171024-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5033574 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5033574?

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 5033574?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5033574?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11171024-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 8, 3 Ngahura Street, Eden Terrace, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5033574 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.
Pranab Gobinda Roy must pay [The landlord/s] $4,073.40 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by telephone. The landlord’s representative also attended the hearing by telephone. There was no attendance by the tenant. An attempt was made to contact the tenant on the telephone number provided however the call went unanswered to voicemail.
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 tenancy ended on 1 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted this evidence I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for this debt.
The claim for rent arrears is proven.

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photographic evidence which clearly showed the tenant’s furniture and personal belongings which had been left behind. This included a bed and a couch.
The photographs also confirmed that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. There were also visible stains on the carpet which the landlord had to have removed. The landlord says that the entire apartment required extensive cleaning.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord says that the tenant changed the lock prior to moving out and did not provide the landlord with a new key. The landlord was forced to have a locksmith enter the premises and change the lock. The landlord also claims that the tenant did not return the two garage door remotes at the end of the tenancy.
Having sighted invoices filed in support of these claims I am satisfied that the tenant has breached his obligations in this regard.
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.
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the bathroom walls. They also stated during the hearing that the shower door had to be adjusted. The landlord says that they have had to repair and plaster and paint parts of the bathroom. Photographs have been provided by the landlord showing minor damage to the walls of the bathroom.
The invoice from 3 to 1 Property Management dated 22 October 2024 for $575.00 has been paid. Unfortunately, the landlord has not provided any evidence of the condition of the bathroom at the start of the tenancy. This is crucial evidence which needs to be provided in support of damage compensation claims. Without this evidence it is impossible for me to assess the condition of the premises, in this case the bathroom, on the day the tenant moved into the property. The claim is not supported by the evidence as provided by the landlord.
The claim for bathroom repairs must be dismissed.
The landlord is no longer seeking a disposal order.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is substantially successful – see section 95A RTA.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5033574 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 8, 3 Ngahura Street, Eden Terrace, Auckland 1021

Tenancy Tribunal case 5033574 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 8, 3 Ngahura Street, Eden Terrace, Auckland 1021

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?