What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5110188?

The tribunal order states: Fangaola Folauhola Tuitupoa and Kalolaine Unaloto Ki Addington Lama must

How much money was awarded in case 5110188?

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 5110188?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5110188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12038009-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5110188?

The tribunal order states: Fangaola Folauhola Tuitupoa and Kalolaine Unaloto Ki Addington Lama must

How much money was awarded in case 5110188?

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 5110188?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5110188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12038009-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

53 The Coastal Highway, Appleby, RD 1, Richmond 7081, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5110188 — Rent arrears

Order

Fangaola Folauhola Tuitupoa and Kalolaine Unaloto Ki Addington Lama must pay B E Halstead Limited $17,129.91 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended this continuation hearing. Mr Brian Halstead represented the landlord. The tenants arrived late after the hearing commenced without them. However, given the prior hearing and a recap of what had been submitted in the absence it was appropriate to continue the hearing. The tenants were able to respond to all claims.
The bond was previously released to the landlord.
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 15 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
In Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726 the District Court confirmed there is a duty to mitigate for rent arrears (see section 49 Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The Court confirmed the test of what the landlord ought to do to mitigate its loss is a factual one and depends on: a. Whether the landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss; and b. More particularly, whether it acted reasonably having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
In Huang v Ashworth the Court reduced the rent arrears by a third to take into account a failure to mitigate loss.
In Ho v Tenant [2024] NZTT 4875311, 27 August 2024, a recent decision in the Tribunal, the Adjudicator, in applying Huang v Ashworth capped the rent arrears payable by the tenant to 12 weeks.
At both hearings I raised my consideration of whether the landlord might have failed to mitigate its loss in respect of the rent arrears. This was initially forewarned in the first adjournment order. The rent summary does not lend itself to an accurate timeline of arrears. The landlord confirmed rent arrears started “around” 2022/23 so there is a long history of significant rent arrears but also variable rent payments, reflecting the seasonal income of the tenants. The landlord indicated there had been verbal communication in respect to rent arrears but nothing in writing. He stated the tenants had promised (in mid-late 2024) to pay the rent arrears via a hardship release of their Kiwisaver. Nothing to evidence any such application has been provided; no clearance of the rent arrears occurred. In fact, rent ceased being paid in late August 2024.
I heard from Mt Halstead that he did not seek a termination earlier because of sympathy for the tenants, as well as a complication that they also did some work for him. The sympathy did not extend to any subsequent rent forgiveness.
In Huang, Judge Sainsbury noted: [18] I consider...attempts to resolve the issue of rent arrears without resorting to eviction were reasonable, especially for a tenancy that had lasted close to 4 years. But I qualify that; it is reasonable only up to a point. Where a tenant repeatedly breaches promises to make up arrears and instead additional arrears are incurred there comes a point when it is being naive or careless to your own interests to persist giving the tenant more time to pay. For that reason, I do not consider that the full arrears can be claimed. In other words I am satisfied on balance of probabilities that here was some failure to mitigate loss but less than that assessed by the Tribunal.
I consider there are parallels with that matter and this. I consider a reduction to the rent arrears due to a failure to mitigate is appropriate.
I consider the rent arrears in two parts. The first is the final rent arrears since the last payment was received on 22 August 2024 and the end of the tenancy. That totals approximately $5,755.00 of rent in the last phase of the tenancy. Subtracting that from the $20,200 claimed leaves a likely arrears prior of some $14,445. I have determined that an adjustment to reflect a failure to mitigate should be made.
The final rent arrears award is $15,000.00. That amount comprises the last phase rent arrears in full and approximately 2/3rds of the legacy rent arrears that built up since 2022/23.

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 tenant stated at a prior hearing that they had been evicted without notice by the landlord, hence the undisputed condition of the premises. They confirmed an intention at that hearing to lodge a counterclaim on that and other matters. Timetabling was set but no counterclaim has been made. I am presented with evidence of a vacated premises that required considered effort to return it to a reasonable condition.
The landlord provided photos and invoices in support. It also claimed a considerable amount of personal labour. The effort appears reasonable for a non-commercial exercise but the hourly rate of $45 plus GST (the same as the commercial cleaners charged for the final clean) is considered too high for a landlord effort and I have recalculated at a more reasonable $30.00 per hour plus incidentals.
The landlord labour costs are apportioned across both clean and rubbish removal awards. I have awarded the rubbish costs (skip bin hire) as claimed except the non-receipted claims of $50.00 dump fee and $75.00 related travel. There is no evidence to support such effort and cost.
The carpet was clearly stained and the invoiced cost of $331.00 for the removal of these should be awarded.
The tenant did not return all of the keys. A locksmith cost of $246.90 was evidenced.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs and smoke alarm batteries. Costs of $15.84 and $43.98 respectively are awarded.
The curtains were dirty and required drycleaning. An invoice support the claim.
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.
A window was broken during the tenancy. The tenants confirmed this and accepted liability for the $242.08 replacement cost. Filing fee
Because B E Halstead Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5110188 — Rent arrears at 53 The Coastal Highway, Appleby, RD 1, Richmond 7081,

Tenancy Tribunal case 5110188 — Rent arrears at 53 The Coastal Highway, Appleby, RD 1, Richmond 7081,

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?

Property management

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?

Property management