How much money was awarded in case 4673929?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $525.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $375.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,120.82 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,673.75 awarded to landlord; Repaint walls/ceilings due to childr…: $3,392.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4673929?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4673929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10121395-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4673929?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $525.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $375.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,120.82 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,673.75 awarded to landlord; Repaint walls/ceilings due to childr…: $3,392.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4673929?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4673929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10121395-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 817, 430 Queen Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4673929 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4673929?

The tribunal order states: Kavitha Koduru and Dhan Raj Chilumula Anjaiah must pay Viaduct City Rentals

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4673929 — net $6,047.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 28/07/2023	$375.00	Rent arrears (to 28/07/2023
Lost rent- 1 week	$525.00	Lost rent- 1 week
Repairs: Repaint walls/ceilings due to children's drawings and stickers	$3,392.50	Repairs: Repaint walls/ceilings due to children's drawings and stickers
Repairs: Relay carpet in damaged areas	$2,673.75	Repairs: Relay carpet in damaged areas
Repairs: Labour, travel and parking costs for repairs at 34.5% of invoiced amount	$1,120.82	Repairs: Labour, travel and parking costs for repairs at 34.5% of invoiced amount
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,047.51
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,047.51

Kavitha Koduru and Dhan Raj Chilumula Anjaiah must pay Viaduct City Rentals Limited $6,047.51 immediately, calculated as shown in table below (“the debt”).

5% of invoiced amount $1,120.82 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$8,107.51 Bond$2,060.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$6,047.51

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,060.00 (5464548-015) to Viaduct City Rentals Limited immediately.

Kavitha Koduru and Dhan Raj Chilumula Anjaiah must repay the debt as follows: a. By 119 weekly payments of $50.00 each Friday, commencing on Friday 5 April 2024 and ending on Friday 17 July 2026; and b. A final payment of $47.51, to fully repay the debt, to be paid on Friday 24 July 2026; and c. Where the tenants’ financial circumstances improve, for example if Kavitha Koduru successfully obtains employment, the tenants have agreed to contact the landlord to make arrangements to increase the weekly amounts payable.

Reasons

Both parties attended 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?

The tenancy ended on 28 July 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

The tenants had not paid rent for the last 5 days of their tenancy as they had thought the one week’s rent, they had paid in advance at the start of the tenancy would cover that week. The one week’s rent in advance had been used earlier on in the tenancy to offset rent not paid.

After reviewing the full rent summary provided, I am satisfied the $375.00 rent arrears claimed by the landlord was proven.

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 carpets from children’s drawings; and b. Damage to the walls from children’s drawings and damage from stickers on the walls and ceilings.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord made claims for replacement of the kitchen cabinetry, which they say was marked, damp and mouldy in places. The tenants had been in the tenancy since April 2017. None of the inspection reports pick up any issues with the kitchen cabinetry. The gib inside the cupboard next to the sink was swollen from water damage. The landlord also says there was mould around the tiles where they connect to the sink. After hearing from the tenants, I do not accept that this water damage or the mould are because of careless or intentional acts or omissions on their part. The damage reported by the landlord is fair wear and tear.

The landlord also made claims for replacement of the floor tiles in the kitchen. The inspection reports show the tiles were tired and worn at various parts of the tenancy. The landlord did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenants carelessly or intentionally damaged the tiles. The tenants had photographs that showed the tiles had been chipped and broken when the tenancy started and that the tiles became more chipped and worn over the course of the tenancy. I find that this is fair wear and tear and not damage for which the tenants can be held liable.

The landlord claimed $3,248.75 of labour costs for the renovation work completed in the 7 weeks after the tenancy ended. I have awarded 34.5% of that cost to the landlord, to reflect having granted only 34.5% of the renovation costs (carpet and wall/ceiling repairs).

The landlord sought 7 weeks of lost rent for the period it was unable to re-rent the property while the renovations were carried out. I have estimated that to replace the area of carpet and repaint the walls and ceilings would take no more than one week. Therefore, I have granted the landlord one week’s lost rent.

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. Reimbursement of the filing fee

Because Viaduct City Rentals Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4673929 — net $6,047.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 28/07/2023	$375.00	Rent arrears (to 28/07/2023
Lost rent- 1 week	$525.00	Lost rent- 1 week
Repairs: Repaint walls/ceilings due to children's drawings and stickers	$3,392.50	Repairs: Repaint walls/ceilings due to children's drawings and stickers
Repairs: Relay carpet in damaged areas	$2,673.75	Repairs: Relay carpet in damaged areas
Repairs: Labour, travel and parking costs for repairs at 34.5% of invoiced amount	$1,120.82	Repairs: Labour, travel and parking costs for repairs at 34.5% of invoiced amount
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,047.51
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,047.51

Order

Kavitha Koduru and Dhan Raj Chilumula Anjaiah must pay Viaduct City Rentals Limited $6,047.51 immediately, calculated as shown in table below (“the debt”).
5% of invoiced amount $1,120.82 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$8,107.51 Bond$2,060.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$6,047.51
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,060.00 (5464548-015) to Viaduct City Rentals Limited immediately.
Kavitha Koduru and Dhan Raj Chilumula Anjaiah must repay the debt as follows: a. By 119 weekly payments of $50.00 each Friday, commencing on Friday 5 April 2024 and ending on Friday 17 July 2026; and b. A final payment of $47.51, to fully repay the debt, to be paid on Friday 24 July 2026; and c. Where the tenants’ financial circumstances improve, for example if Kavitha Koduru successfully obtains employment, the tenants have agreed to contact the landlord to make arrangements to increase the weekly amounts payable.

Reasons

Both parties attended 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?

The tenancy ended on 28 July 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants had not paid rent for the last 5 days of their tenancy as they had thought the one week’s rent, they had paid in advance at the start of the tenancy would cover that week. The one week’s rent in advance had been used earlier on in the tenancy to offset rent not paid.
After reviewing the full rent summary provided, I am satisfied the $375.00 rent arrears claimed by the landlord was proven.

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 carpets from children’s drawings; and b. Damage to the walls from children’s drawings and damage from stickers on the walls and ceilings.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord made claims for replacement of the kitchen cabinetry, which they say was marked, damp and mouldy in places. The tenants had been in the tenancy since April 2017. None of the inspection reports pick up any issues with the kitchen cabinetry. The gib inside the cupboard next to the sink was swollen from water damage. The landlord also says there was mould around the tiles where they connect to the sink. After hearing from the tenants, I do not accept that this water damage or the mould are because of careless or intentional acts or omissions on their part. The damage reported by the landlord is fair wear and tear.
The landlord also made claims for replacement of the floor tiles in the kitchen. The inspection reports show the tiles were tired and worn at various parts of the tenancy. The landlord did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenants carelessly or intentionally damaged the tiles. The tenants had photographs that showed the tiles had been chipped and broken when the tenancy started and that the tiles became more chipped and worn over the course of the tenancy. I find that this is fair wear and tear and not damage for which the tenants can be held liable.
The landlord claimed $3,248.75 of labour costs for the renovation work completed in the 7 weeks after the tenancy ended. I have awarded 34.5% of that cost to the landlord, to reflect having granted only 34.5% of the renovation costs (carpet and wall/ceiling repairs).
The landlord sought 7 weeks of lost rent for the period it was unable to re-rent the property while the renovations were carried out. I have estimated that to replace the area of carpet and repaint the walls and ceilings would take no more than one week. Therefore, I have granted the landlord one week’s lost rent.
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. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because Viaduct City Rentals Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4673929 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 817, 430 Queen Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4673929 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 817, 430 Queen Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions