What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5133788?

The tribunal order states: Misa-Tepa Misiluki must pay Csi Property Management Limited $2,396.42

How much money was awarded in case 5133788?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,805.14 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $284.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5133788?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5133788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12025946-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5133788?

The tribunal order states: Misa-Tepa Misiluki must pay Csi Property Management Limited $2,396.42

How much money was awarded in case 5133788?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,805.14 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $284.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5133788?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5133788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12025946-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

43 Raphoe Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5133788 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5133788 — net $2,396.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23 December 2024	$4,805.14	17. I find the tenant to be credible and reliable in her submissions.
Water rates	$284.28	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,396.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,396.42

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The landlord was represented by Mr Bhuiyan. Mr Bhuiyan requested that the property owner, Mr Hakkak also join the hearing. I called Mr Hakkak twice on the number provided by Mr Bhuiyan and on both occasions the call went to answerphone.

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 and water rates?

The tenancy ended by consent on 23 December 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $4,805.14 for rent arrears and $284.28 for water rates invoices. The tenant does not dispute these amounts.

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.

The landlord claims two knobs were missing from the cooktop at the end of the tenancy. The landlord invoiced the tenant $100.00 to replace four knobs and the tenant paid this amount. The landlord was then unable to find replacement knobs, and instead replaced the entire cooktop. The landlord produced an invoice for $198.00 for the cooktop and is claiming a further $98.00 to cover the entire cost of the cooktop.

The landlord claims the cooktop was five to six years old at the end of the tenancy.

The tenant disputes that the knobs were missing at the end of the tenancy. However, she accepts that she had cleaners clean the premises at the end of the tenancy, and it is possible that the knobs went missing as a result of this.

The tenant says the cooktop was older than five or six years old.

The landlord has not provided any reliable information about the age of the cooktop. Nor has the landlord provided start of tenancy photographs or end of tenancy photographs.

I accept on the balance of probabilities that after the cleaners finished at the property the cooktop knobs were missing. I consider the alternative, that is that the knobs were there but the landlord is claiming that they weren’t, is too unusual to be true, as it would provide no benefit to the landlord.

The IRD Depreciation Guide sets the life expectancy of an oven to be 8 years. This means that over the course of 8 years a landlord is able to completely depreciate the asset. On this basis an oven or cooktop with a purchase price of $200.00 has a residual value of far less than $100.00 after six years. A landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. Following this, the landlord has already been compensated by the tenant in excess of the residual value of the cooktop, and I decline to make an award for the lost knobs.

The landlord is also claiming a total of $156.00 to replace two towel rails that they say were broken at the end of the tenancy.

The tenant claims that at the beginning of the tenancy the towel rails were already broken and had tape around them holding them together. She denies carelessly damaging the towel rails.

The landlord accepts there was tape around the towel rails.

Again, no start of tenancy photographs and no end of tenancy photographs have been provided to show the condition of the towel rails.

I find the tenant to be credible and reliable in her submissions. She has provided information not provided by the landlord that the landlord accepts as correct, such as the tape around the towel rails and having paid $100.00 to replace the cooktop knobs. She has not disputed rent arrears or water rates arrears. I accept the tenant’s submission that the towel rails were already damaged at the beginning of the tenancy.

On the information before me, the landlord has not persuaded me that damage to the towel rails during this tenancy exceeds fair wear and tear. Nor am I persuaded that the tenant damaged the towel rails during the tenancy, much less that damage was caused carelessly.

This claim is not proved.

Because Csi Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5133788 — net $2,396.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23 December 2024	$4,805.14	17. I find the tenant to be credible and reliable in her submissions.
Water rates	$284.28	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,396.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,396.42

Order

Misa-Tepa Misiluki must pay Csi Property Management Limited $2,396.42 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (5961796-003) to Csi Property Management Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The landlord was represented by Mr Bhuiyan. Mr Bhuiyan requested that the property owner, Mr Hakkak also join the hearing. I called Mr Hakkak twice on the number provided by Mr Bhuiyan and on both occasions the call went to answerphone.
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 and water rates?

The tenancy ended by consent on 23 December 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $4,805.14 for rent arrears and $284.28 for water rates invoices. The tenant does not dispute these amounts.
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.
The landlord claims two knobs were missing from the cooktop at the end of the tenancy. The landlord invoiced the tenant $100.00 to replace four knobs and the tenant paid this amount. The landlord was then unable to find replacement knobs, and instead replaced the entire cooktop. The landlord produced an invoice for $198.00 for the cooktop and is claiming a further $98.00 to cover the entire cost of the cooktop.
The landlord claims the cooktop was five to six years old at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant disputes that the knobs were missing at the end of the tenancy. However, she accepts that she had cleaners clean the premises at the end of the tenancy, and it is possible that the knobs went missing as a result of this.
The tenant says the cooktop was older than five or six years old.
The landlord has not provided any reliable information about the age of the cooktop. Nor has the landlord provided start of tenancy photographs or end of tenancy photographs.
I accept on the balance of probabilities that after the cleaners finished at the property the cooktop knobs were missing. I consider the alternative, that is that the knobs were there but the landlord is claiming that they weren’t, is too unusual to be true, as it would provide no benefit to the landlord.
The IRD Depreciation Guide sets the life expectancy of an oven to be 8 years. This means that over the course of 8 years a landlord is able to completely depreciate the asset. On this basis an oven or cooktop with a purchase price of $200.00 has a residual value of far less than $100.00 after six years. A landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. Following this, the landlord has already been compensated by the tenant in excess of the residual value of the cooktop, and I decline to make an award for the lost knobs.
The landlord is also claiming a total of $156.00 to replace two towel rails that they say were broken at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant claims that at the beginning of the tenancy the towel rails were already broken and had tape around them holding them together. She denies carelessly damaging the towel rails.
The landlord accepts there was tape around the towel rails.
Again, no start of tenancy photographs and no end of tenancy photographs have been provided to show the condition of the towel rails.
I find the tenant to be credible and reliable in her submissions. She has provided information not provided by the landlord that the landlord accepts as correct, such as the tape around the towel rails and having paid $100.00 to replace the cooktop knobs. She has not disputed rent arrears or water rates arrears. I accept the tenant’s submission that the towel rails were already damaged at the beginning of the tenancy.
On the information before me, the landlord has not persuaded me that damage to the towel rails during this tenancy exceeds fair wear and tear. Nor am I persuaded that the tenant damaged the towel rails during the tenancy, much less that damage was caused carelessly.
This claim is not proved.
Because Csi Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5133788 — Rent arrears at 43 Raphoe Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5133788 — Rent arrears at 43 Raphoe Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions