What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5124568?

The tribunal order states: Centro Pilgrim Limited must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent for

How much money was awarded in case 5124568?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $162.15 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $471.56 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,428.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5124568?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5124568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11419218-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5124568?

The tribunal order states: Centro Pilgrim Limited must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent for

How much money was awarded in case 5124568?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $162.15 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $471.56 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,428.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5124568?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5124568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11419218-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2A Crescent Road, Parnell, Auckland 1052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5124568 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5124568 — net $10,089.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$9,428.57	Rent arrears
Lock/key replacement	$162.15	Lock/key replacement
Book replacement	$471.56	Book replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,089.28
Bond	$12,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,089.28

Centro Pilgrim Limited must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent for Tariq A.Aziz H N Al-Naama & Jamileh Rahdar $10,089.28 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $12,000.00 (6409710-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Tariq A.Aziz H N Al-Naama & Jamileh Rahdar: $10,089.28 Centro Pilgrim Limited Andrew James O'Neil: $1,910.72

This Order does not determine the tenant’s claims as set out in application 5131788, so the tenant is able to file a further application in respect of those claims if he chooses.

Reasons

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

This matter was initially scheduled to be heard by videoconference on 13 March 2024. The tenant has provided a screen shot of a txt sent to him on 13 January 2024 with that notification. No formal Notice of Hearing seems to have been issued for that date.

A Notice of Hearing for today’s fixture was sent to the parties on 28 January 2024.

The tenant requested an adjournment of today’s hearing on the basis that he had made travel commitments based on the txt he received for the hearing on 13 March. Opportunity was provided to the tenant to provide evidence of his inability to attend in person and if so a hearing by teleconference was proposed. The tenant says that he cannot attend in person or by phone but has not provided any evidence in support.

The tenant has provided evidence and submissions in relation to the claims. Essentially, while some questions are raised about the landlord’s calculation of the rent arrears, the tenant does not dispute that primary claim. The landlord’s other more minor claims can be determined with documentary evidence.

I have determined that without evidence of the tenant’s inability to attend in person or by phone, it would be unfair to the landlord to delay the hearing of its application.

I will not however hear the tenant’s counter claims in his absence or dismiss them for his non attendance. That would determine those claims and prevent his raising them again. In the circumstances is fair to leave open the tenant’s ability to resubmit those claims if he chooses.

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 3 December 2024.

Unusually, at the tenant’s request, the rent was paid initially in large lump sums and later by monthly payments of $13,035.71. The tenant has a concern that the wrong sums were charged and that he overpaid. I have checked the claimed arrears by calculating the total rent due for the whole of the tenancy at a weekly rent of $3,000.00, allowing for 1 weeks’ rent abatement agreed by the landlord. From that I have deducted the total rent paid by the tenant over the term of the tenancy as recorded in the landlord’s rent summary. The difference representing unpaid rent accords with the sum claimed by the landlord and I am satisfied that the sum claimed is properly payable.

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.

Though after some time the tenant did provide the landlord with keys for the property, the tenant did not, “...return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant...” as required by s.40(1)(e)(iv) RTA. The landlord is entitled to be reimbursed the rekeying cost which is proved by the invoice provided.

The premises were provided fully furnished and a comprehensive chattels list was included. On that chattels list are a number of books, individually identified and shown in photographs taken when the tenancy began.

The property manager has given direct evidence that having himself undertaken inspections of the premises when the tenancy ended, some books were not there. Opportunity was given to the tenant to find and return them but that has not happened.

I find it proved on balance that the books included in the landlord’s application were at the premises when the tenancy began but not there when the tenancy ended. The landlord is entitled to be compensated for the replacement cost.

Some books were classic or limited edition. The landlord claims compensation based on the current bookseller price for buying replacements. In the case of such books, applying depreciation is not appropriate and I find that it would not be unfair to take those prices as a basis for compensating the landlord for their loss.

Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent for Tariq A.Aziz H N Al-Naama & Jamileh Rahdar has succeeded with the claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5124568 — net $10,089.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$9,428.57	Rent arrears
Lock/key replacement	$162.15	Lock/key replacement
Book replacement	$471.56	Book replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,089.28
Bond	$12,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,089.28

Order

Centro Pilgrim Limited must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent for Tariq A.Aziz H N Al-Naama & Jamileh Rahdar $10,089.28 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $12,000.00 (6409710-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Tariq A.Aziz H N Al-Naama & Jamileh Rahdar: $10,089.28 Centro Pilgrim Limited Andrew James O'Neil: $1,910.72
This Order does not determine the tenant’s claims as set out in application 5131788, so the tenant is able to file a further application in respect of those claims if he chooses.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
This matter was initially scheduled to be heard by videoconference on 13 March 2024. The tenant has provided a screen shot of a txt sent to him on 13 January 2024 with that notification. No formal Notice of Hearing seems to have been issued for that date.
A Notice of Hearing for today’s fixture was sent to the parties on 28 January 2024.
The tenant requested an adjournment of today’s hearing on the basis that he had made travel commitments based on the txt he received for the hearing on 13 March. Opportunity was provided to the tenant to provide evidence of his inability to attend in person and if so a hearing by teleconference was proposed. The tenant says that he cannot attend in person or by phone but has not provided any evidence in support.
The tenant has provided evidence and submissions in relation to the claims. Essentially, while some questions are raised about the landlord’s calculation of the rent arrears, the tenant does not dispute that primary claim. The landlord’s other more minor claims can be determined with documentary evidence.
I have determined that without evidence of the tenant’s inability to attend in person or by phone, it would be unfair to the landlord to delay the hearing of its application.
I will not however hear the tenant’s counter claims in his absence or dismiss them for his non attendance. That would determine those claims and prevent his raising them again. In the circumstances is fair to leave open the tenant’s ability to resubmit those claims if he chooses.
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 3 December 2024.
Unusually, at the tenant’s request, the rent was paid initially in large lump sums and later by monthly payments of $13,035.71. The tenant has a concern that the wrong sums were charged and that he overpaid. I have checked the claimed arrears by calculating the total rent due for the whole of the tenancy at a weekly rent of $3,000.00, allowing for 1 weeks’ rent abatement agreed by the landlord. From that I have deducted the total rent paid by the tenant over the term of the tenancy as recorded in the landlord’s rent summary. The difference representing unpaid rent accords with the sum claimed by the landlord and I am satisfied that the sum claimed is properly payable.

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.
Though after some time the tenant did provide the landlord with keys for the property, the tenant did not, “...return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant...” as required by s.40(1)(e)(iv) RTA. The landlord is entitled to be reimbursed the rekeying cost which is proved by the invoice provided.
The premises were provided fully furnished and a comprehensive chattels list was included. On that chattels list are a number of books, individually identified and shown in photographs taken when the tenancy began.
The property manager has given direct evidence that having himself undertaken inspections of the premises when the tenancy ended, some books were not there. Opportunity was given to the tenant to find and return them but that has not happened.
I find it proved on balance that the books included in the landlord’s application were at the premises when the tenancy began but not there when the tenancy ended. The landlord is entitled to be compensated for the replacement cost.
Some books were classic or limited edition. The landlord claims compensation based on the current bookseller price for buying replacements. In the case of such books, applying depreciation is not appropriate and I find that it would not be unfair to take those prices as a basis for compensating the landlord for their loss.
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent for Tariq A.Aziz H N Al-Naama & Jamileh Rahdar has succeeded with the claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5124568 — Rent arrears at 2A Crescent Road, Parnell, Auckland 1052

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5124568 — Rent arrears at 2A Crescent Road, Parnell, Auckland 1052

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?

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions