What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4815417?

The tribunal order states: The tenants applied for name suppression. That application is dismissed, and

How much money was awarded in case 4815417?

Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,128.36 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $827.89 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $28.36 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4815417?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4815417?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10152861-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4815417?

The tribunal order states: The tenants applied for name suppression. That application is dismissed, and

How much money was awarded in case 4815417?

Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,128.36 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $827.89 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $28.36 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4815417?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4815417?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10152861-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 10, 25 Day Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4815417 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4815417 — net $2,427.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 07/03/2024	$4,128.36	claim for compensation and water rates arrears.
Rubbish removal	$827.89	Rubbish removal
Cleaning (full house deep clean	$402.50	Cleaning (full house deep clean
Lock/key replacement	$300.00	Lock/key replacement
Water rates (to 07/03/2024	$28.36	Water rates (to 07/03/2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,427.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,427.55

Order

The tenants applied for name suppression. That application is dismissed, and no suppression orders made.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,280.00 (3412759-015) to City Sales Limited immediately.
Vern Muller and Zhyryll Krystynn Parado Munao must pay City Sales Limited $2,427.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

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. During the hearing, the landlord also made a claim for compensation and water rates arrears.
The tenants made a cross application for their fixed term tenancy to be reduced to 29 January 2024, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the application fee. Suppression of names and identifying details
The tenants applied for name suppression. The landlord as the successful party would have been granted name suppression if it had made this application.
The tenants did not provide any evidence to the Tribunal that they may suffer extreme hardship nor that it would not be in the public interest if their name was made public. Their sole claim for name suppression was that the matters that gave rise to these proceedings were not of their doing and so they should not have their names open to the public in this Order.
There was evidence before the Tribunal that the tenants had not fully discharged their obligations to the landlord, and could have, despite the trauma they endured. As a result, both parties incurred additional unnecessary costs. Therefore, as the unsuccessful party, the tenants’ application for name suppression and suppression of their identifying details is not granted.

Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

The tenants fixed term tenancy commenced on 14 November 2023 and was due to end on 11 November 2024.
On 21 January 2024, the tenants’ home was broken into, burgled and one of the tenants was badly assaulted and injured. That tenant is now in a wheelchair. Both tenants suffered emotional harm from the incident, and it is subject to a Police investigation.
The tenants left the house on 21 January 2024, and never returned to it, as it was initially a crime scene, the injured tenant was in hospital for some time and that tenant will never be able to access the premises due to their being no wheelchair access to the premises, and the other tenant was too emotionally traumatised to ever return there.
A second break in happened a few nights after the initial break in and the garage door and a window in the master bedroom were damaged. The burglars also ransacked the house.
The tenants claim they initially communicated with the property manager about wanting to end their fixed term tenancy early, as they could not continue with it under the circumstances.
The property manager says she sent the tenants a break lease early form and they never signed and returned it and she had made it clear to them that this is what was required for the property management company to start the break lease process. As a result of not receiving this signed form, the tenancy remained on foot until 7 March 2024, when the tenants had the keys returned to the property manager.
During the hearing, both parties gave evidence that because of the trauma suffered by the tenants, the tenants did not communicate as well as they could have with the property manager. As a result, the property manager did not know if the tenants were still residing in the premises if they had abandoned it and when, or if, they were going to return to collect their belongings.
On 27 February 2024, the property manager undertook a property inspection and she stated that she found the premises unclean, rotting food in the fridge and the tenants belonging and rubbish strewn throughout the premise. This led the property manager to conclude the tenants had abandoned the property. She made an application to the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy and possession.
After the landlord’s application was filed, the tenants filed their cross application to have the term of the tenancy reduced to 29 January 2024, just after the second break in.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenants had been in breach of the body corporate rules and the owners had incurred several $1,000.00 fines for those breaches that it was not passing on to the tenants.
The landlord also gave evidence that there is video evidence of the cars belonging to the persons that allegedly broke into the house on both occasions and video evidence that showed the tenants had interactions with these same persons during their tenancy. In addition, the property manager states that the damage to the garage and window and other damage from the break in has been covered by the owners and is not recoverable from the owner’s insurance.
The property manager gave the tenants an undertaking during the hearing that, despite the owners not having been able to place new tenants into the property until it has been fixed up to a reasonable standard, the owners are prepared to release the tenants early from their fixed term tenancy, with the end date being 7 March 2024. In doing so, the owners are forgoing their right to hold the tenants liable for rent to the date of the expiry of the term or the date of commencement of a new tenancy of the premises, whichever is the earlier.
In all the circumstances, I find that there is no justification for the Tribunal to terminate the fixed term tenancy on 29 January 2024. The owners of the property have incurred significant loss that they have not sought to pass on to the tenants, the tenants failed to keep the property manager informed of what they were doing in relation to ending the tenancy and collecting their belongings and it would not be fair and just in the circumstances for the owners to absorb any further costs resulting from the tenancy by reducing the fixed term of the tenancy earlier than 7 March 2024, the date the tenants gave the landlord vacant possession of the premises.
For the reasons outlined above, I dismiss the tenants claim for their fixed term tenancy to be reduced. The tenancy ended on 7 March 2023.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy and the tenants did not dispute these amounts.

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.
The tenant did not return the keys prior to the landlord noticing the back door was left ajar and unknown persons were reported to have been in and out of the premises removing the tenants’ possessions. The property manager stated that she needed to secure the property as she was concerned more of the tenants’ belongings were being stolen and the premises were at risk of further damage if not secured with new locks immediately. The locks were changed on 7 March 2023, and later that day a friend of the tenants returned the keys and informed the property manager that the tenants belongings had been removed.
The landlord has claimed compensation for rubbish removal, cleaning of the premises and the cost of having the locks changed. The tenants did not provide evidence that disproved their liability for these costs.
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:
The garage door was broken;
A garage remote was missing, and
The window in the master bedroom was broken.
The tenants have disproved liability for the damage as this damage occurred because of the break ins and aggravated assault. The tenants cannot be held liable for damage or stolen chattels that did not result from the tenants’ intentional or careless acts or omissions. The damage and theft were caused by a third party that was not at the premise with the tenants’ consent.
The landlord’s claims for compensation for the garage door, garage remote and the broken window are dismissed accordingly. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because City Sales Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4815417 — net $2,427.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 07/03/2024	$4,128.36	claim for compensation and water rates arrears.
Rubbish removal	$827.89	Rubbish removal
Cleaning (full house deep clean	$402.50	Cleaning (full house deep clean
Lock/key replacement	$300.00	Lock/key replacement
Water rates (to 07/03/2024	$28.36	Water rates (to 07/03/2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,427.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,427.55

Order

The tenants applied for name suppression. That application is dismissed, and no suppression orders made.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,280.00 (3412759-015) to City Sales Limited immediately.
Vern Muller and Zhyryll Krystynn Parado Munao must pay City Sales Limited $2,427.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

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. During the hearing, the landlord also made a claim for compensation and water rates arrears.
The tenants made a cross application for their fixed term tenancy to be reduced to 29 January 2024, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the application fee. Suppression of names and identifying details
The tenants applied for name suppression. The landlord as the successful party would have been granted name suppression if it had made this application.
The tenants did not provide any evidence to the Tribunal that they may suffer extreme hardship nor that it would not be in the public interest if their name was made public. Their sole claim for name suppression was that the matters that gave rise to these proceedings were not of their doing and so they should not have their names open to the public in this Order.
There was evidence before the Tribunal that the tenants had not fully discharged their obligations to the landlord, and could have, despite the trauma they endured. As a result, both parties incurred additional unnecessary costs. Therefore, as the unsuccessful party, the tenants’ application for name suppression and suppression of their identifying details is not granted.

Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

The tenants fixed term tenancy commenced on 14 November 2023 and was due to end on 11 November 2024.
On 21 January 2024, the tenants’ home was broken into, burgled and one of the tenants was badly assaulted and injured. That tenant is now in a wheelchair. Both tenants suffered emotional harm from the incident, and it is subject to a Police investigation.
The tenants left the house on 21 January 2024, and never returned to it, as it was initially a crime scene, the injured tenant was in hospital for some time and that tenant will never be able to access the premises due to their being no wheelchair access to the premises, and the other tenant was too emotionally traumatised to ever return there.
A second break in happened a few nights after the initial break in and the garage door and a window in the master bedroom were damaged. The burglars also ransacked the house.
The tenants claim they initially communicated with the property manager about wanting to end their fixed term tenancy early, as they could not continue with it under the circumstances.
The property manager says she sent the tenants a break lease early form and they never signed and returned it and she had made it clear to them that this is what was required for the property management company to start the break lease process. As a result of not receiving this signed form, the tenancy remained on foot until 7 March 2024, when the tenants had the keys returned to the property manager.
During the hearing, both parties gave evidence that because of the trauma suffered by the tenants, the tenants did not communicate as well as they could have with the property manager. As a result, the property manager did not know if the tenants were still residing in the premises if they had abandoned it and when, or if, they were going to return to collect their belongings.
On 27 February 2024, the property manager undertook a property inspection and she stated that she found the premises unclean, rotting food in the fridge and the tenants belonging and rubbish strewn throughout the premise. This led the property manager to conclude the tenants had abandoned the property. She made an application to the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy and possession.
After the landlord’s application was filed, the tenants filed their cross application to have the term of the tenancy reduced to 29 January 2024, just after the second break in.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenants had been in breach of the body corporate rules and the owners had incurred several $1,000.00 fines for those breaches that it was not passing on to the tenants.
The landlord also gave evidence that there is video evidence of the cars belonging to the persons that allegedly broke into the house on both occasions and video evidence that showed the tenants had interactions with these same persons during their tenancy. In addition, the property manager states that the damage to the garage and window and other damage from the break in has been covered by the owners and is not recoverable from the owner’s insurance.
The property manager gave the tenants an undertaking during the hearing that, despite the owners not having been able to place new tenants into the property until it has been fixed up to a reasonable standard, the owners are prepared to release the tenants early from their fixed term tenancy, with the end date being 7 March 2024. In doing so, the owners are forgoing their right to hold the tenants liable for rent to the date of the expiry of the term or the date of commencement of a new tenancy of the premises, whichever is the earlier.
In all the circumstances, I find that there is no justification for the Tribunal to terminate the fixed term tenancy on 29 January 2024. The owners of the property have incurred significant loss that they have not sought to pass on to the tenants, the tenants failed to keep the property manager informed of what they were doing in relation to ending the tenancy and collecting their belongings and it would not be fair and just in the circumstances for the owners to absorb any further costs resulting from the tenancy by reducing the fixed term of the tenancy earlier than 7 March 2024, the date the tenants gave the landlord vacant possession of the premises.
For the reasons outlined above, I dismiss the tenants claim for their fixed term tenancy to be reduced. The tenancy ended on 7 March 2023.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy and the tenants did not dispute these amounts.

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.
The tenant did not return the keys prior to the landlord noticing the back door was left ajar and unknown persons were reported to have been in and out of the premises removing the tenants’ possessions. The property manager stated that she needed to secure the property as she was concerned more of the tenants’ belongings were being stolen and the premises were at risk of further damage if not secured with new locks immediately. The locks were changed on 7 March 2023, and later that day a friend of the tenants returned the keys and informed the property manager that the tenants belongings had been removed.
The landlord has claimed compensation for rubbish removal, cleaning of the premises and the cost of having the locks changed. The tenants did not provide evidence that disproved their liability for these costs.
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:
The garage door was broken;
A garage remote was missing, and
The window in the master bedroom was broken.
The tenants have disproved liability for the damage as this damage occurred because of the break ins and aggravated assault. The tenants cannot be held liable for damage or stolen chattels that did not result from the tenants’ intentional or careless acts or omissions. The damage and theft were caused by a third party that was not at the premise with the tenants’ consent.
The landlord’s claims for compensation for the garage door, garage remote and the broken window are dismissed accordingly. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because City Sales Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4815417 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 10, 25 Day Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4815417 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 10, 25 Day Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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