How much money was awarded in case 4658949?

Bailiff Enforcement Fee: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $620.00 awarded to landlord; Doors: $667.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4658949?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4658949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9539270-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4658949?

Bailiff Enforcement Fee: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $620.00 awarded to landlord; Doors: $667.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4658949?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4658949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9539270-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 27 Cameron Road, Hamilton East, Hamilton Tenancy Tribunal Case 4658949 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4658949?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4658949 — net $1,507.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 May 2023	$620.00	Rent arrears to 24 May 2023
Bailiff enforcement fee	$200.00	Bailiff enforcement fee
Repairs: doors	$667.00	Repairs: doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,507.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,507.44

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

Olivia-Justice Poi Poi-Henare must pay Tapper Property Management Group Limited as Agent for Gary and Leonie Tapper $1,507.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Ms Brunel appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.

The application was filed on 17 August 2023, more than two months after the end of the tenancy. Applications made more than two months after the end of the tenancy must be served either personally on the tenant, on someone over the age of 16 living at an address where the tenant now lives, or to an address for service provided by the tenant within two months before the application was made. See section 91A (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”)

The landlord has produced email correspondence with the tenant concerning the tenancy dated 11 July 2023. The notice of hearing for this matter has been sent to that email address. I am satisfied that the tenant has had notice of the date, time, and mode of this hearing.

In April 2023, the tenant breached the terms of a mediated order for conditional termination. Ms Brunel states that the tenant refused to vacate the property and required the order for termination to be enforced. On 24 May 2023, the order was enforced, and the tenant vacated the property. The bond of $1,440.00 was subsequently released to the landlord and applied to the rent arrears, leaving a balance owing of $620.00. The landlord is also claiming reimbursement for the bailiff enforcement fee as a loss arising out of the breach of the order. A rent summary has been produced, showing all the rent payments received by the landlord. I award the rent arrears of $620.00 and the bailiff enforcement fee of $200.00.

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

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord is seeking cleaning costs of $160.00.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.

Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy will require an objective assessment. There are no photographs showing the uncleanliness of the property. There is insufficient evidence to make an objective assessment. The claim for cleaning is dismissed

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for damage to the bathroom and lounge door occurring during the tenancy which they state is more than fair wear and tear.

To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that 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 of the Act.

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. See section 49B(3)(a) of the Act. Ms Brunel states the landlord has insurance for non-intentional damage with an excess of $1,460.00 per claim.

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) of the Act.

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 has produced photographs taken at the end of the tenancy showing large holes and other damage to the bathroom and lounge doors. The pre tenancy checklist, which includes photographs, does not record these areas as damaged at the commencement of the tenancy. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The damage is consistent with having been caused by an intentional act of force. The amount claimed to replace the doors, which due to the extent of the damage cannot be repaired, is reasonable and is awarded in full. Costs

Because Tapper Property Management Group Limited as Agent for Gary and Leonie Tapper has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression

Although they have been substantially successful the landlrod does not seek name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4658949 — net $1,507.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 May 2023	$620.00	Rent arrears to 24 May 2023
Bailiff enforcement fee	$200.00	Bailiff enforcement fee
Repairs: doors	$667.00	Repairs: doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,507.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,507.44

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

Olivia-Justice Poi Poi-Henare must pay Tapper Property Management Group Limited as Agent for Gary and Leonie Tapper $1,507.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Ms Brunel appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.

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

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord is seeking cleaning costs of $160.00.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for damage to the bathroom and lounge door occurring during the tenancy which they state is more than fair wear and tear.

Because Tapper Property Management Group Limited as Agent for Gary and Leonie Tapper has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression

Although they have been substantially successful the landlrod does not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4658949 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 3, 27 Cameron Road, Hamilton East, Hamilton

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4658949 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 3, 27 Cameron Road, Hamilton East, Hamilton

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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