Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4535271 — Rent arrears at 102 Te Manatu Drive, Huntington, Hamilton 3210
Decided 20 Jul 2023 · Published 20 Jul 2023 · Application 4535271
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Order
- No suppression orders apply to this decision.
- Toby John McDonald and Candice Herbst must pay Paul Lu $2,536.81 calculated as shown in the table below.
- The tenants must pay the debt in order 2 at the rate of $50.00 per week.
- The first payment must be made on Friday 28 July 2023 and payments must continue every Friday until the debt is paid in full.
- If the tenant fails to make any payment within 2 working days of the due date, the balance of the debt owing will be payable immediately and can be enforced through the District Court.
Reasons
- All named parties attended the hearing today.
- Both parties have made applications to the Tribunal.
- The tenancy ended on 16 March 2023. Rent owing
- The landlord provided a rent ledger showing rent owing of $5,574.00 including payments made after the tenancy ended.
- The tenants agree that the ledger is correct except that it does not record a cash payment of $475.00 that they made to the landlord’s wife. They say that this was paid when they met with her on the evening of 16 March 2023 at the premises and conducted a final inspection together.
- The landlord said that his wife denies receiving the money. His wife was not available to give evidence.
- I accept the tenants’ oral evidence and have credited $475.00 to the rent.
- The balance owing is $5,099.00. End of tenancy matters
- Mr McDonald agrees that he accidentally took his set of keys with him after the tenancy ended and didn’t find them in time to return them. The landlord has an invoice for the cost of $160.00 to rekey two locks. This is awarded.
- One of the garage remotes was misplaced during the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice for the replacement which is also awarded.
- After considering the evidence from both parties, I award $120.00 towards the cost to clean lights and ceilings of fly dirt. There is no other evidence to show that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy (required by section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986) - RTA.
- The landlord applied for compensation for small pin or nail holes in some walls and submitted photos of other scuff and chip marks. He claims $509.00.
- The law for damage claims is that a landlord must first prove that any damage 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.
- I do not award this claim because there was no ingoing inspection report or photographs so the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy is not recorded. In addition, the landlord’s photos were taken after the next tenants moved in. Any scuffs or chips may have been done by them. Failure to lodge the bond
- The tenants found out that the landlord did not lodge their bond with the Bond Centre. A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages (which are like a fine) up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- This breach is intentional because the landlord knew that he had not lodged the bond.
- The landlord’s intent was not to break the law because he said that he did not fully realise that this was a legal obligation until part-way through the tenancy. He did not lodge it at that point because he said the tenants were already having trouble paying the rent and he knew that he would keep it safe.
- The effect has been minimal because the landlord was owed money for rent. He has kept the bond money of $2,400.00.
- The interests of the tenants are that the bond should be lodged securely because it is tenant money until a landlord proves a valid claim.
- There is a public interest in all landlords knowing they must always lodge any money paid to them as a bond.
- It is just to award exemplary damages. The landlord has had other tenants and should know the law. I award $500.00. Filing fees and suppression of names
- The filing fees will remain as paid as both parties have been partially successful.
- The tenants have rent arrears and the landlord failed to lodge the bond. After weighing up the interests of the parties and the public interest, I decline to order suppression of names; s95A RTA. Payment plan
- The bond is credited towards the amount owing by the tenants.
- There is a balance to pay by the tenants of $2,536.81.
- The parties agreed to a payment plan to start from next Friday. If this is breached, the landlord may enforce the debt in the District Court or through a debt collection agency.