What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4649270?

The tribunal order states: Paul Hitchon must pay Viaduct City Rentals Limited Acting Agent For Peter &

How much money was awarded in case 4649270?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $999.72 awarded to landlord; Heater: $116.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4649270?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4649270?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10058890-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4649270?

The tribunal order states: Paul Hitchon must pay Viaduct City Rentals Limited Acting Agent For Peter &

How much money was awarded in case 4649270?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $999.72 awarded to landlord; Heater: $116.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4649270?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4649270?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10058890-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 514, 430 Queen Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4649270 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4649270 — net $1,343.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$999.72	Rent arrears
Repairs: heater	$116.50	Repairs: heater
Cleaning	$207.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,343.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,343.66

Order

Paul Hitchon must pay Viaduct City Rentals Limited Acting Agent For Peter & Linda Millen $1,343.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$999.72 Repairs: heater$116.50 Cleaning$207.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,343.66
This order replaced the mediated order for rent arrears, made on the same application number. This is for ease of enforcement.
The remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant appeared by telephone.
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?

The tenancy ended on 18 June 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. That amount was partially satisfied by the refunding of the bond to the landlord.

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.
The landlord alleges the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant’s position was the landlord emailed him to say that only a quick clean was required, rather than the usual end of tenancy clean.
I allowed the tenant time to provide a copy of that email to the Tribunal and the Landlord. It was not received.
On the basis of the evidence in front of me, including the photographs provided by the landlord, I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. In the absence of evidence that the landlord agreed to a lower standard of cleanliness, I consider this portion of the claim is proved.
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. A detached wall heater.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord also sought compensation for charges pass on by the building body corporate for: a. Damage to smoke alarms. b. Clearing a fault in the fire panels. c. Breaching of the body corporate rules.
For the smoke alarms and the fault in the fire panels (which I understand to mean there were faults detected within the system, which created computer alerts which had to be cleared from the main electronic panels, rather than physical damage), there is limited, and somewhat confusing evidence as to what was damaged and how, and the work required to repair. One of the invoices refer to a contractor attending many apartments at the same time, and the smoke alarms being in the hallways, rather than in the apartments. While there is an allegation that the tenant removed smoke alarms, there is no actual evidence that he did that. The same allegation is repeated for several apartments. Further complicating matters is that acceptance by the landlord that part of the invoice was to repair damage caused by water leaking from the apartment above this one. The tenant is not liable for that damage. While I accept that the landlord is not seeking to recover the full cost, the apportionment is not based on any clear reasoning.
On that basis, I consider the landlord had not proved its case. That portion of the claim is dismissed.
In relation to the breach of the body corporate rules, the landlord was charged a fee for breach of the rules, allegedly by the tenant. The landlord paid that fee and seeks reimbursement by the tenants.
While the body corporate rules are incorporated into the tenancy agreement under the Act, I consider that the landlord can only recover this amount if the breach of the rules is proved. Their acceptance of liability to the body corporate is not sufficient. I do not consider that there is sufficient evidence to prove the allegations. There is a brief report attached to the invoice and nothing else. No witnesses to the alleged behaviour are identified or present at the hearing.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved this breach. The application is dismissed.
Because Viaduct City Rentals Limited Acting Agent For Peter & Linda Millen has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4649270 — net $1,343.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$999.72	Rent arrears
Repairs: heater	$116.50	Repairs: heater
Cleaning	$207.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,343.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,343.66

Order

Paul Hitchon must pay Viaduct City Rentals Limited Acting Agent For Peter & Linda Millen $1,343.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$999.72 Repairs: heater$116.50 Cleaning$207.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,343.66
This order replaced the mediated order for rent arrears, made on the same application number. This is for ease of enforcement.
The remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant appeared by telephone.
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?

The tenancy ended on 18 June 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. That amount was partially satisfied by the refunding of the bond to the landlord.

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.
The landlord alleges the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant’s position was the landlord emailed him to say that only a quick clean was required, rather than the usual end of tenancy clean.
I allowed the tenant time to provide a copy of that email to the Tribunal and the Landlord. It was not received.
On the basis of the evidence in front of me, including the photographs provided by the landlord, I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. In the absence of evidence that the landlord agreed to a lower standard of cleanliness, I consider this portion of the claim is proved.
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. A detached wall heater.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord also sought compensation for charges pass on by the building body corporate for: a. Damage to smoke alarms. b. Clearing a fault in the fire panels. c. Breaching of the body corporate rules.
For the smoke alarms and the fault in the fire panels (which I understand to mean there were faults detected within the system, which created computer alerts which had to be cleared from the main electronic panels, rather than physical damage), there is limited, and somewhat confusing evidence as to what was damaged and how, and the work required to repair. One of the invoices refer to a contractor attending many apartments at the same time, and the smoke alarms being in the hallways, rather than in the apartments. While there is an allegation that the tenant removed smoke alarms, there is no actual evidence that he did that. The same allegation is repeated for several apartments. Further complicating matters is that acceptance by the landlord that part of the invoice was to repair damage caused by water leaking from the apartment above this one. The tenant is not liable for that damage. While I accept that the landlord is not seeking to recover the full cost, the apportionment is not based on any clear reasoning.
On that basis, I consider the landlord had not proved its case. That portion of the claim is dismissed.
In relation to the breach of the body corporate rules, the landlord was charged a fee for breach of the rules, allegedly by the tenant. The landlord paid that fee and seeks reimbursement by the tenants.
While the body corporate rules are incorporated into the tenancy agreement under the Act, I consider that the landlord can only recover this amount if the breach of the rules is proved. Their acceptance of liability to the body corporate is not sufficient. I do not consider that there is sufficient evidence to prove the allegations. There is a brief report attached to the invoice and nothing else. No witnesses to the alleged behaviour are identified or present at the hearing.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved this breach. The application is dismissed.
Because Viaduct City Rentals Limited Acting Agent For Peter & Linda Millen has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4649270 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 514, 430 Queen Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4649270 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 514, 430 Queen Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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?

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