What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4748049?

The tribunal order states: Joshua Robert Aurik to pay Bayleys Property Management As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4748049?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Painting Contribution: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4688413 D…: $534.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4748049?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4748049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9942840-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4748049?

The tribunal order states: Joshua Robert Aurik to pay Bayleys Property Management As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4748049?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Painting Contribution: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4688413 D…: $534.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4748049?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4748049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9942840-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

200 Crawford Street, Glengarry, Invercargill 9810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4748049 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4748049 — net $484.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 4688413 dated 21/11/2023	$534.99		Previous order application 4688413 dated 21/11/2023
Painting contribution	$150.00		Painting contribution
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain curtains and		$200.00	Failure to maintain curtains and
Total award	$684.99	$200.00
Net award	$484.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$484.99

Order

Joshua Robert Aurik to pay Bayleys Property Management As Agent For Satishkumar & Bhumika Kathiriya $484.99 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 21 November 2023 under application 4688413.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $484.99 to Bayleys Property Management As Agent For Satishkumar & Bhumika Kathiriya immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,155.01 to Joshua Robert Aurik immediately.

Reasons

This case was part heard and adjourned on the 21 November 2023. The remainder of the hearing concluded before me today. Both parties attended the hearing.
At the original hearing I made an order for the rent arrears and carpet cleaning.
The landlord has applied compensation for repainting, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant filed a cross application claiming that the landlord breached their responsibility to maintain the property.

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:
The tenant accepts responsibility for the significant smoke damage when cooking was left on the stove and almost caught fire. This was due to the fact that he had to leave the stove to attend to the broken toilet that I shall discuss later on in my decision.
The tenant attempted to clean up and repaint the surface of the ceiling and walls. The landlord claims that it was not of reasonable standard. On the evidence presented I agree. However, I must take into account the condition of the painted walls and ceiling and the age of the property at the time of the incident, as a result of all evidence I make an award for a contribution to the painting.
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.
On 21 November 2023 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to the end of the tenancy and for carpet cleaning. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
Joshua Robert Aurik claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to maintain the property in relation to a number of different issues. I shall deal with each one individually. Curtains:
The evidence is clear, the condition of the curtains needed to be addressed at the commencement of the tenancy, this took one year to be remedied. The property manager stating they passed it onto the owner who would not reply, and she eventually did it themselves. They no longer have the management of this property.
I find that this is a failure to maintain and an unlawful act. They had mould and this was a health hazard. On this basis I make an award as reflected in the decision.
The second issue was the issue with the overflow of the toilet. This issue was raised with the landlord on 22 November 2022 and again on the 15 th of February 2023.
This was the issues that distracted the tenant whilst cooking that could have had a disastrous result.
The toilet was repaired after the fire, three months after being bought to the attention of the landlord.
Under the circumstances this is a long time to have waited, especially under the circumstances that lead to the smoke damage in the kitchen. I therefore make an award for the landlord failing to maintain in a timely manner when requests were made by the tenant to remedy.
The tenant also claims that the outside weather boards needed to be maintained, a leak in the kitchen just prior to his departure from the tenancy, and skirting damage. However, on the evidence submitted, this part of the claim is not proven. The standards the tenant may have in relation to the condition of some areas of the home does not necessarily equate to the landlord failing to maintain.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Having considered all of the evidence I make the award of costs as outlined above. Given both parties were successful to some degree I do not order the cost of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4748049 — net $484.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 4688413 dated 21/11/2023	$534.99		Previous order application 4688413 dated 21/11/2023
Painting contribution	$150.00		Painting contribution
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain curtains and		$200.00	Failure to maintain curtains and
Total award	$684.99	$200.00
Net award	$484.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$484.99

Order

Joshua Robert Aurik to pay Bayleys Property Management As Agent For Satishkumar & Bhumika Kathiriya $484.99 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 21 November 2023 under application 4688413.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $484.99 to Bayleys Property Management As Agent For Satishkumar & Bhumika Kathiriya immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,155.01 to Joshua Robert Aurik immediately.

Reasons

This case was part heard and adjourned on the 21 November 2023. The remainder of the hearing concluded before me today. Both parties attended the hearing.
At the original hearing I made an order for the rent arrears and carpet cleaning.
The landlord has applied compensation for repainting, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant filed a cross application claiming that the landlord breached their responsibility to maintain the property.

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:
The tenant accepts responsibility for the significant smoke damage when cooking was left on the stove and almost caught fire. This was due to the fact that he had to leave the stove to attend to the broken toilet that I shall discuss later on in my decision.
The tenant attempted to clean up and repaint the surface of the ceiling and walls. The landlord claims that it was not of reasonable standard. On the evidence presented I agree. However, I must take into account the condition of the painted walls and ceiling and the age of the property at the time of the incident, as a result of all evidence I make an award for a contribution to the painting.
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.
On 21 November 2023 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to the end of the tenancy and for carpet cleaning. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
Joshua Robert Aurik claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to maintain the property in relation to a number of different issues. I shall deal with each one individually. Curtains:
The evidence is clear, the condition of the curtains needed to be addressed at the commencement of the tenancy, this took one year to be remedied. The property manager stating they passed it onto the owner who would not reply, and she eventually did it themselves. They no longer have the management of this property.
I find that this is a failure to maintain and an unlawful act. They had mould and this was a health hazard. On this basis I make an award as reflected in the decision.
The second issue was the issue with the overflow of the toilet. This issue was raised with the landlord on 22 November 2022 and again on the 15 th of February 2023.
This was the issues that distracted the tenant whilst cooking that could have had a disastrous result.
The toilet was repaired after the fire, three months after being bought to the attention of the landlord.
Under the circumstances this is a long time to have waited, especially under the circumstances that lead to the smoke damage in the kitchen. I therefore make an award for the landlord failing to maintain in a timely manner when requests were made by the tenant to remedy.
The tenant also claims that the outside weather boards needed to be maintained, a leak in the kitchen just prior to his departure from the tenancy, and skirting damage. However, on the evidence submitted, this part of the claim is not proven. The standards the tenant may have in relation to the condition of some areas of the home does not necessarily equate to the landlord failing to maintain.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Having considered all of the evidence I make the award of costs as outlined above. Given both parties were successful to some degree I do not order the cost of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4748049 — State of repair at 200 Crawford Street, Glengarry, Invercargill 9810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4748049 — State of repair at 200 Crawford Street, Glengarry, Invercargill 9810

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions