What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5158013?

The tribunal order states: Nicole Therese Boyd to pay Property Brokers Hawkes Bay Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5158013?

Cleaning: $136.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,260.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $242.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5158013?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5158013?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11873898-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5158013?

The tribunal order states: Nicole Therese Boyd to pay Property Brokers Hawkes Bay Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5158013?

Cleaning: $136.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,260.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $242.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5158013?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5158013?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11873898-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 552 Hatuma Road, Hatuma, RD 1, Waipukurau Tenancy Tribunal Case 5158013 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5158013 — net $2,115.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 November 2024	$1,260.00	Rent arrears to 14 November 2024
Water rates	$242.65	Water rates
Cleaning	$136.00	Cleaning
Repairs	$450.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,115.65
Bond	$2,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,115.65

Nicole Therese Boyd to pay Property Brokers Hawkes Bay Limited As Agent For Shaun And Joanne Littleworth And Denton $2,115.65 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (6533314-011) immediately apportioned as follows: Property Brokers Hawkes Bay Limited As Agent For Shaun And Joanne Littleworth And Denton: $2,115.65 Nicole Therese Boyd: $404.35

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenant did not answer any of the calls made at the scheduled time to the number provided to the Tribunal.

The landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made outside of the two months required for the usual service requirements to apply. See Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 section 91A.

The tenant has been served by email which is an address for service on her tenancy agreement.

The landlord provided information which satisfies me that the tenant is still a tenant of the landlord’s but at another address, and that the tenant’s email is still current and in use by the tenant.

On that basis, I am satisfied the tenant has received notice of the hearing. Because the tenant has not requested an adjournment I am prepared to conduct the hearing in the tenant’s absence.

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 costs?

The tenancy ended on 14 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water costs invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $1,260.00 for rent arrears and $242.50 to refill the water tanks which had been full at the beginning of the tenancy.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord claims that at the end of the tenancy a room which the tenant had used to keep a pet dog in needed repeated thorough cleaning of the floor to remove the smell of dog urine. The landlord provided photographs and an invoice in support of this claim.

The claim is 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. 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 during the tenancy the tenant’s pet dog chewed at a door frame causing significant damage. Following the end of the tenancy this needed replacing. The landlord provided photographs and an invoice in support of the claim.

I am satisfied the damage is more than fair wear and tear. Because it appears that the damage was caused over a somewhat extended timeframe, and the tenant did not take sufficient measures to prevent the damage continuing, I determine the damage is intentional.

The landlord should be returned to the position they were in prior to the damage occurring. I have considered whether there is any betterment for the landlord in the repairs. I consider that doorframes should reasonably last for the life-span of the premises. In replacing the doorframes there is no betterment for the landlord.

The claim and amount sought are proved.

Because Property Brokers Hawkes Bay Limited As Agent For Shaun And Joanne Littleworth And Denton has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5158013 — net $2,115.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 November 2024	$1,260.00	Rent arrears to 14 November 2024
Water rates	$242.65	Water rates
Cleaning	$136.00	Cleaning
Repairs	$450.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,115.65
Bond	$2,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,115.65

Order

Nicole Therese Boyd to pay Property Brokers Hawkes Bay Limited As Agent For Shaun And Joanne Littleworth And Denton $2,115.65 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (6533314-011) immediately apportioned as follows: Property Brokers Hawkes Bay Limited As Agent For Shaun And Joanne Littleworth And Denton: $2,115.65 Nicole Therese Boyd: $404.35

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenant did not answer any of the calls made at the scheduled time to the number provided to the Tribunal.
The landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made outside of the two months required for the usual service requirements to apply. See Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 section 91A.
The tenant has been served by email which is an address for service on her tenancy agreement.
The landlord provided information which satisfies me that the tenant is still a tenant of the landlord’s but at another address, and that the tenant’s email is still current and in use by the tenant.
On that basis, I am satisfied the tenant has received notice of the hearing. Because the tenant has not requested an adjournment I am prepared to conduct the hearing in the tenant’s absence.
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 costs?

The tenancy ended on 14 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water costs invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $1,260.00 for rent arrears and $242.50 to refill the water tanks which had been full at the beginning of the tenancy.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims that at the end of the tenancy a room which the tenant had used to keep a pet dog in needed repeated thorough cleaning of the floor to remove the smell of dog urine. The landlord provided photographs and an invoice in support of this claim.
The claim is 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. 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 during the tenancy the tenant’s pet dog chewed at a door frame causing significant damage. Following the end of the tenancy this needed replacing. The landlord provided photographs and an invoice in support of the claim.
I am satisfied the damage is more than fair wear and tear. Because it appears that the damage was caused over a somewhat extended timeframe, and the tenant did not take sufficient measures to prevent the damage continuing, I determine the damage is intentional.
The landlord should be returned to the position they were in prior to the damage occurring. I have considered whether there is any betterment for the landlord in the repairs. I consider that doorframes should reasonably last for the life-span of the premises. In replacing the doorframes there is no betterment for the landlord.
The claim and amount sought are proved.
Because Property Brokers Hawkes Bay Limited As Agent For Shaun And Joanne Littleworth And Denton has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5158013 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 552 Hatuma Road, Hatuma, RD 1, Waipukurau

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5158013 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 552 Hatuma Road, Hatuma, RD 1, Waipukurau

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water costs?

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

How much is owed for rent and water costs?

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