What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4642647?

The tribunal order states: Rajanpreet Singh and Ravjot Singh Dhillon must pay Tbt Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4642647?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4642647?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4642647?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9757674-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4642647?

The tribunal order states: Rajanpreet Singh and Ravjot Singh Dhillon must pay Tbt Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4642647?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4642647?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4642647?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9757674-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 17, 35 Convoy Lane, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4642647 — Rent arrears

Order

Rajanpreet Singh and Ravjot Singh Dhillon must pay Tbt Property Management Limited $10,177.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below (‘the debt”).
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,440.00 (6492552-005) to Tbt Property Management Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Rajanpreet Singh attended the hearing for the tenants. Mr Ravjot Singh Dhillon did not appear.
I am satisfied that Mr Ravjot Singh Dhillon was served notice of the place, date and time of the hearing and chose not to attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation/damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent, water rates and electricity?

The tenancy was fixed term, commencing on 18 May 2023 and ending on 17 May 2024.
Issues arose between Mr Rajanpreet Singh and Mr Singh Dhillon and a third party that sublet the premises. The third party was subject to domestic violence by Mr Rajanpreet Singh. He was arrested on 9 July 2023 and released on bail on 11 July 2023. One of his bail conditions was that he was not to return to the tenancy address. He was bailed to an address in Tauranga. Consequently, he has not been back to the tenancy address since 9 July 2023.
He argued that he should not be responsible for the damages and rent arrears as he had not been living at the premises when the damage occurred, that he had paid the full amount of the bond and had made all rent payments up to 9 July 2023. He argued further that Mr Singh Dhillon and the third party that was living there without his permission should be liable for the debt.
The Landlord went to mediation to get possession of the premises and both tenants agreed that they would give up possession of the tenancy premises on 21 August 2023 and accepted they would remain liable for the rent until new tenants were found. Mr Singh Dhillon also sent an email on 21 August 2023 accepting responsibility for the rent until a new tenant was found and for the release fees associated with breaking the fixed term tenancy early.
The new tenants moved into the tenancy address on 14 September 2023.
The tenancy ended on 13 September 2023. The landlord provided rent records, water rates invoices and electricity invoices which prove the amounts 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. This resulted in the landlord having to hire a skip rubbish bin and dispose of the rubbish left behind.
The tenant did not return the keys. This resulted in the keypad having to be reprogramed and the letterbox lock being replaced.
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. 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: a. Damage to the carpet and the two bedrooms from canine urine and clawing/pulling up pieces of the carpet; and b. Wall damage from pet scratching walls and eating the staircase.
Mr Singh accepted that he had kept a dog at the premises without seeking approval or even informing the landlord when that was expressly forbidden under the terms of the tenancy agreement. That term is included in the tenancy agreement as the landlord’s insurance does not cover pet related damage.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
Mr Singh argued that he should be released from responsibility for the damage that occurred after he had been trespassed from the property and told not to associate with the third party subletting the tenancy premises. I do not accept that he is no longer jointly and severally liable for the debt. He did not contact the landlord and agree to be removed from the tenancy agreement from the date he was no longer allowed to live at the tenancy premises. He therefore remains just as liable for the debt as Mr Singh Dhillon.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Filing Fee
Because Tbt Property Management Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4642647 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 17, 35 Convoy Lane, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

Tenancy Tribunal case 4642647 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 17, 35 Convoy Lane, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent, water rates and electricity?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent, water rates and electricity?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management