What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4597191?

The tribunal order states: An Order for name suppression has been requested and the Tribunal declines

How much money was awarded in case 4597191?

Lawns: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,280.00 awarded to landlord; Paint And Chain Material: $96.14 awarded to landlord; Shed Doors: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4597191?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4597191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9598008-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4597191?

The tribunal order states: An Order for name suppression has been requested and the Tribunal declines

How much money was awarded in case 4597191?

Lawns: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,280.00 awarded to landlord; Paint And Chain Material: $96.14 awarded to landlord; Shed Doors: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4597191?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4597191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9598008-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27 Crispe Road, Clarks Beach, Clarks Beach 2122 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4597191 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4597191 — net $2,836.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 April 2023	$3,280.00	Rent arrears to 19 April 2023
Rubbish removal and hedge trimming	$300.00	Rubbish removal and hedge trimming
Lawns	$50.00	Lawns
Labour for rubbish, hedge, lawns, repair shed door	$400.00	Labour for rubbish, hedge, lawns, repair shed door
Repairs: Paint and chain material	$96.14	Repairs: Paint and chain material
Repairs: Shed doors	$350.00	Repairs: Shed doors
Net award	$2,836.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,836.14

Order

An Order for name suppression has been requested and the Tribunal declines name suppression to the Landlord.
Uriah Flavell must pay Rohinton Faramroz Patrawala and Tanaz Patrawala $2,836.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,640.00 (6393237-008) to Rohinton Faramroz Patrawala and Tanaz Patrawala immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not appear.
The Landlord had applied to the Tribunal previously for termination and compensation under case number 4428097. The Landlord on that occasion, filed evidence in support of compensation claims however those were not determined then. The Landlord assumed the evidence for that case, would be available for the current application. This is not the case. As this is a new application, all of the evidence to support this application is required to be filed again by the Landlord. The Landlord was given an opportunity to send this evidence through after the hearing.
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 arrears?

The tenancy ended on 19 April 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end 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, 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 lawns required mowing as the grass had overgrown. The edges required trimming and there was a considerable amount of rubbish strewn across the backyard. This rubbish included gym equipment, a golf bag, plates, towels, broken drawers and chairs. Photographs were provided of the rubbish and an invoice from a tradesperson. The invoice claimed $300.00 for the rubbish and hedge trimming. It claimed a further $800.00 for labour and materials however it did not specify which job involved how many hours of labour and how much was spent on materials. I accept there would have been labour costs charged and that the rubbish and hedge trimming would have cost $300.00. There is no indication however what the hourly rate for the labour was.
For this reason, I have awarded $300.00 for the rubbish and hedge trimming and $400.00 for the labour to remove the rubbish, trim the hedges, mow the lawns and repair the shed door. The amounts ordered are proved.
The Tenant claimed $195.00 to hire flexi-bins however there was no invoice or photograph for a flexi-bin provided to substantiate the cost. This claim is dismissed.

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the heating device, damage to the ceramic cooktop, damage to the curtains, damage to the walls and damage to the shed doors.
Damage to the heating device: The Landlord claimed $230.00 for the repair to the heating device and provided an invoice dated 21 March 2023 which stated ‘attend site to wire and test installations and repairs...’. The description in the invoice stated ‘labour materials and expense to wire and test installations as per agreed price’. It is noted in the ingoing inspection report that there was a remark stating’ heating device wall switch partially cracked however functional’. In considering this evidence, I am not satisfied that the damage to the heating device was caused by the Tenant. At the start of the tenancy, the heating device appeared to be deteriorating and then the repair invoice did not specifically state the repair was for the heating device. For these reasons, the claim is dismissed.
Ceramic cooktop -The Landlord claimed $229.00 for a replacement ceramic cooktop. The Landlord provided an invoice for the replacement however the date this was purchased was not visible from the photograph provided. The ingoing inspection report did not note issues with the ceramic top. There was no photographs of damage to the ceramic cooktop or evidence from an independent electrician verifying it was damaged to the extent it needed replacement. Without any date on the receipt, it could have been a ceramic cooktop purchased for the Landlord or another property. The evidence was insufficient to support this claim. For these reasons, the claim is dismissed.
Paint and chain materials- The landlord claimed $93.77 for paints to repaint the walls, doors and chain that were damaged. There were photographs of this damage and the ingoing inspection report indicated there was no damage. There was also an invoice to substantiate the costs of the paints. The amount ordered is proved.
Curtains- The Landlord claimed $71.00 for new curtains as they had been damaged by the Tenant. The ingoing inspection report noted there were no issues with the curtains. There was nothing provided by the Landlord to show the damage or removal of the curtains by the Tenant. The claim is dismissed.
Petrol- The Landlord claimed $75.88 for travel and provided a receipt to prove the costs. There was nothing to show the mileage accrued from the Landlords office to the property to substantiate this amount. It was also uncertain how many trips this petrol was used for. The claim is dismissed.
Shed doors- The Landlord claimed $350.00 for the damaged shed doors which appeared to be hanging off the hinges. A photograph was provided and invoice to substantiate the repairs. There was no record of the shed being damaged in the ingoing inspection report. The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Compensation- time and attendances
The Landlord claimed $1908.32 for time and attendances at the property however there was nothing provided to show a breakdown of their time, how many times they attended the property and what each trip was for.
For these reasons, the claim is dismissed. Compensation- stress
The Landlord claimed $2000.00 for the stress of having to deal with this particular tenancy. The Landlord did not provide any records to prove their stress for example medical records or counselling records or taking sick leave off work. For these reasons, the claim is dismissed.
As the Landlord has not been substantially successful, name suppression is not granted to the Landlord and the Landlord must pay their own filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4597191 — net $2,836.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 April 2023	$3,280.00	Rent arrears to 19 April 2023
Rubbish removal and hedge trimming	$300.00	Rubbish removal and hedge trimming
Lawns	$50.00	Lawns
Labour for rubbish, hedge, lawns, repair shed door	$400.00	Labour for rubbish, hedge, lawns, repair shed door
Repairs: Paint and chain material	$96.14	Repairs: Paint and chain material
Repairs: Shed doors	$350.00	Repairs: Shed doors
Net award	$2,836.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,836.14

Order

An Order for name suppression has been requested and the Tribunal declines name suppression to the Landlord.
Uriah Flavell must pay Rohinton Faramroz Patrawala and Tanaz Patrawala $2,836.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,640.00 (6393237-008) to Rohinton Faramroz Patrawala and Tanaz Patrawala immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not appear.
The Landlord had applied to the Tribunal previously for termination and compensation under case number 4428097. The Landlord on that occasion, filed evidence in support of compensation claims however those were not determined then. The Landlord assumed the evidence for that case, would be available for the current application. This is not the case. As this is a new application, all of the evidence to support this application is required to be filed again by the Landlord. The Landlord was given an opportunity to send this evidence through after the hearing.
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 arrears?

The tenancy ended on 19 April 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end 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, 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 lawns required mowing as the grass had overgrown. The edges required trimming and there was a considerable amount of rubbish strewn across the backyard. This rubbish included gym equipment, a golf bag, plates, towels, broken drawers and chairs. Photographs were provided of the rubbish and an invoice from a tradesperson. The invoice claimed $300.00 for the rubbish and hedge trimming. It claimed a further $800.00 for labour and materials however it did not specify which job involved how many hours of labour and how much was spent on materials. I accept there would have been labour costs charged and that the rubbish and hedge trimming would have cost $300.00. There is no indication however what the hourly rate for the labour was.
For this reason, I have awarded $300.00 for the rubbish and hedge trimming and $400.00 for the labour to remove the rubbish, trim the hedges, mow the lawns and repair the shed door. The amounts ordered are proved.
The Tenant claimed $195.00 to hire flexi-bins however there was no invoice or photograph for a flexi-bin provided to substantiate the cost. This claim is dismissed.

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the heating device, damage to the ceramic cooktop, damage to the curtains, damage to the walls and damage to the shed doors.
Damage to the heating device: The Landlord claimed $230.00 for the repair to the heating device and provided an invoice dated 21 March 2023 which stated ‘attend site to wire and test installations and repairs...’. The description in the invoice stated ‘labour materials and expense to wire and test installations as per agreed price’. It is noted in the ingoing inspection report that there was a remark stating’ heating device wall switch partially cracked however functional’. In considering this evidence, I am not satisfied that the damage to the heating device was caused by the Tenant. At the start of the tenancy, the heating device appeared to be deteriorating and then the repair invoice did not specifically state the repair was for the heating device. For these reasons, the claim is dismissed.
Ceramic cooktop -The Landlord claimed $229.00 for a replacement ceramic cooktop. The Landlord provided an invoice for the replacement however the date this was purchased was not visible from the photograph provided. The ingoing inspection report did not note issues with the ceramic top. There was no photographs of damage to the ceramic cooktop or evidence from an independent electrician verifying it was damaged to the extent it needed replacement. Without any date on the receipt, it could have been a ceramic cooktop purchased for the Landlord or another property. The evidence was insufficient to support this claim. For these reasons, the claim is dismissed.
Paint and chain materials- The landlord claimed $93.77 for paints to repaint the walls, doors and chain that were damaged. There were photographs of this damage and the ingoing inspection report indicated there was no damage. There was also an invoice to substantiate the costs of the paints. The amount ordered is proved.
Curtains- The Landlord claimed $71.00 for new curtains as they had been damaged by the Tenant. The ingoing inspection report noted there were no issues with the curtains. There was nothing provided by the Landlord to show the damage or removal of the curtains by the Tenant. The claim is dismissed.
Petrol- The Landlord claimed $75.88 for travel and provided a receipt to prove the costs. There was nothing to show the mileage accrued from the Landlords office to the property to substantiate this amount. It was also uncertain how many trips this petrol was used for. The claim is dismissed.
Shed doors- The Landlord claimed $350.00 for the damaged shed doors which appeared to be hanging off the hinges. A photograph was provided and invoice to substantiate the repairs. There was no record of the shed being damaged in the ingoing inspection report. The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Compensation- time and attendances
The Landlord claimed $1908.32 for time and attendances at the property however there was nothing provided to show a breakdown of their time, how many times they attended the property and what each trip was for.
For these reasons, the claim is dismissed. Compensation- stress
The Landlord claimed $2000.00 for the stress of having to deal with this particular tenancy. The Landlord did not provide any records to prove their stress for example medical records or counselling records or taking sick leave off work. For these reasons, the claim is dismissed.
As the Landlord has not been substantially successful, name suppression is not granted to the Landlord and the Landlord must pay their own filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4597191 — Rent arrears at 27 Crispe Road, Clarks Beach, Clarks Beach 2122

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4597191 — Rent arrears at 27 Crispe Road, Clarks Beach, Clarks Beach 2122

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent arrears?

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent arrears?

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

Frequently asked questions