What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4787404?

The tribunal order states: Sioeli Uhatafe must pay 360 Property Management Limited As Agent For Action

How much money was awarded in case 4787404?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $848.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4787404?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4787404?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10250185-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4787404?

The tribunal order states: Sioeli Uhatafe must pay 360 Property Management Limited As Agent For Action

How much money was awarded in case 4787404?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $848.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4787404?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4787404?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10250185-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

50A Everitt Road, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4787404 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4787404 — net $2,238.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess (for 2 claims	$2,000.00	Insurance excess (for 2 claims
Repairs: External cladding repair	$848.75	Repairs: External cladding repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,238.89
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,238.89

Order

Sioeli Uhatafe must pay 360 Property Management Limited As Agent For Action Jackson Limited $2,238.89 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $630.30 (5977024-004) to 360 Property Management Limited As Agent For Action Jackson Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The landlord has applied for vacated damages/compensation, refund of the remainder of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Service of notice of hearing on tenant
The tenancy ended on `7 September 2023. The application to the Tribunal was made more than 2 months after the termination of the tenancy, being 21 January 2024.
Section 91AA of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states “If the landlord files an application more than 2 months after the termination of the tenancy to which it relates, any notice or other document required to be served on the tenant relating to the application must be given to or served on the tenant— (a) personally; or (b) by posting it to a contact address that the tenant has supplied to the landlord in writing within the 2 months before the application; or (c) by delivering it to the place where the tenant now lives and giving it to any person appearing to be aged 16 years or older who appears to be residing at that place and who confirms that the tenant resides there; or (d) by giving it to any solicitor or other agent of the tenant duly authorised by the tenant to receive service on his or her behalf.”
The landlord gave evidence that: a. The property manager had been in touch with the tenant by email and produced evidence that on 25 January 2024 the tenant had confirmed the email address for service in the tenancy agreement was still current and could be used to communicate matters to do with the Tribunal hearing about the allocation of the remainder of the $630.30 bond; b. The property manager has also tried to call the tenant on the phone number she has for him and confirmed that two are no longer in service and one rings and cuts off; c. The property manager has no idea where the tenant now lives or works and has had a call from the tenant’s lawyer asking for a copy of the tenancy agreement and provided information that led the property manager to believe the tenant may be incarcerated. The lawyer did not provide the landlord with current contact details for the tenant nor leave the lawyer’s contact details; and d. The tenant has not provided the landlord with a solicitor or other agent of the tenant that he has duly authorised to receive service on his behalf.
I am satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to serve the notice or other document on the tenant in accordance with the RTA and that the tenant has been emailed all the information pertinent to the matters heard by me today.

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 or personal items he no longer wanted.
The tenant did not return the keys.
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:
Numerous holes in the walls of every room, internal doors and the exterior cladding of the house;
Damage to cabinetry in the house;
Damage to light fittings throughout the house; and
Damage to curtains and curtain railings.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord has insurance that covered most of this damage. The insurance excess is $1,000.00 for each claim. The landlord made three claims for damage done by the tenant during his tenancy that was due to careless or intentional acts by the tenant or persons in the rental premises with the tenant’s consent. All three claims were accepted. The damage to the exterior cladding cost $948.75 to repair, so was under the insurance excess amount. Therefore, a fourth claim was not made to cover that damage.
Two of the insurance claims relate to damage that the landlord has proven occurred during the tenancy. I am satisfied the tenant is liable for the cost of these two insurance excess amounts.
The third insurance claim relates to undefined damage the insurer says occurred after the end of the tenancy. I am not satisfied the tenant is responsible for the damage related to the third insurance claim so dismiss the landlord’s application for reimbursement of the third insurance excess fee.
The landlord provided evidence that shows there was some minor damage to the external cladding of the rental premise before the start of the tenancy. As such, I have deducted $100.00 from the landlord’s claim for reimbursement of the $948.75 it cost to repair the holes in the external cladding.
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 filing fee
Because 360 Property Management Limited As Agent For Action Jackson Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4787404 — net $2,238.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess (for 2 claims	$2,000.00	Insurance excess (for 2 claims
Repairs: External cladding repair	$848.75	Repairs: External cladding repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,238.89
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,238.89

Order

Sioeli Uhatafe must pay 360 Property Management Limited As Agent For Action Jackson Limited $2,238.89 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $630.30 (5977024-004) to 360 Property Management Limited As Agent For Action Jackson Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The landlord has applied for vacated damages/compensation, refund of the remainder of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Service of notice of hearing on tenant
The tenancy ended on `7 September 2023. The application to the Tribunal was made more than 2 months after the termination of the tenancy, being 21 January 2024.
Section 91AA of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states “If the landlord files an application more than 2 months after the termination of the tenancy to which it relates, any notice or other document required to be served on the tenant relating to the application must be given to or served on the tenant— (a) personally; or (b) by posting it to a contact address that the tenant has supplied to the landlord in writing within the 2 months before the application; or (c) by delivering it to the place where the tenant now lives and giving it to any person appearing to be aged 16 years or older who appears to be residing at that place and who confirms that the tenant resides there; or (d) by giving it to any solicitor or other agent of the tenant duly authorised by the tenant to receive service on his or her behalf.”
The landlord gave evidence that: a. The property manager had been in touch with the tenant by email and produced evidence that on 25 January 2024 the tenant had confirmed the email address for service in the tenancy agreement was still current and could be used to communicate matters to do with the Tribunal hearing about the allocation of the remainder of the $630.30 bond; b. The property manager has also tried to call the tenant on the phone number she has for him and confirmed that two are no longer in service and one rings and cuts off; c. The property manager has no idea where the tenant now lives or works and has had a call from the tenant’s lawyer asking for a copy of the tenancy agreement and provided information that led the property manager to believe the tenant may be incarcerated. The lawyer did not provide the landlord with current contact details for the tenant nor leave the lawyer’s contact details; and d. The tenant has not provided the landlord with a solicitor or other agent of the tenant that he has duly authorised to receive service on his behalf.
I am satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to serve the notice or other document on the tenant in accordance with the RTA and that the tenant has been emailed all the information pertinent to the matters heard by me today.

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 or personal items he no longer wanted.
The tenant did not return the keys.
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:
Numerous holes in the walls of every room, internal doors and the exterior cladding of the house;
Damage to cabinetry in the house;
Damage to light fittings throughout the house; and
Damage to curtains and curtain railings.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord has insurance that covered most of this damage. The insurance excess is $1,000.00 for each claim. The landlord made three claims for damage done by the tenant during his tenancy that was due to careless or intentional acts by the tenant or persons in the rental premises with the tenant’s consent. All three claims were accepted. The damage to the exterior cladding cost $948.75 to repair, so was under the insurance excess amount. Therefore, a fourth claim was not made to cover that damage.
Two of the insurance claims relate to damage that the landlord has proven occurred during the tenancy. I am satisfied the tenant is liable for the cost of these two insurance excess amounts.
The third insurance claim relates to undefined damage the insurer says occurred after the end of the tenancy. I am not satisfied the tenant is responsible for the damage related to the third insurance claim so dismiss the landlord’s application for reimbursement of the third insurance excess fee.
The landlord provided evidence that shows there was some minor damage to the external cladding of the rental premise before the start of the tenancy. As such, I have deducted $100.00 from the landlord’s claim for reimbursement of the $948.75 it cost to repair the holes in the external cladding.
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 filing fee
Because 360 Property Management Limited As Agent For Action Jackson Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4787404 — Property damage at 50A Everitt Road, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4787404 — Property damage at 50A Everitt Road, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

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