What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4838226?

The tribunal order states: This Tribunal Order supersedes the Tribunal Order of 13 November 2023 (App.

How much money was awarded in case 4838226?

Huriarangi, And Miriama Paparoa Are…: $23,179.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4838226?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4838226?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10472965-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4838226?

The tribunal order states: This Tribunal Order supersedes the Tribunal Order of 13 November 2023 (App.

How much money was awarded in case 4838226?

Huriarangi, And Miriama Paparoa Are…: $23,179.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4838226?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4838226?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10472965-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

90G Ranolf Street, Victoria, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4838226 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

90G Ranolf Street, Victoria, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4838226 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4838226. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
huriarangi, and Miriama Paparoa are to pay Jasu Mati Bhana And Stephen Chiman Bhana As Trustees For The Ranolf Trust a t	$23,179.29		huriarangi, and Miriama Paparoa are to pay Jasu Mati Bhana And Stephen Chiman Bhana As Trustees For The Ranolf Trust a t

Claims and awards for application 4838226. Verify on MoJ.

huriarangi, and Miriama Paparoa are to pay Jasu Mati Bhana And Stephen Chiman Bhana As Trustees For The Ranolf Trust a t

Amount: $23,179.29
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: huriarangi, and Miriama Paparoa are to pay Jasu Mati Bhana And Stephen Chiman Bhana As Trustees For The Ranolf Trust a t

Order

This Tribunal Order supersedes the Tribunal Order of 13 November 2023 (App. 4709023) and the Tribunal Order of 24 January 2024 (App. 4709023).
Peyton (Gill) Tahuriarangi, Ururoa George Tahuriarangi, and Miriama Paparoa are to pay Jasu Mati Bhana And Stephen Chiman Bhana As Trustees For The Ranolf Trust a total amount of $23,179.29 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionAmount ($) Rent arrears14,994.29 Lost rent1,280.00 Removal of tenant's furniture900.00 Cleaning charges960.00 Remote control for heat pump59.99 Microwave139.00 Washing machine350.00 Blue rug100.00 Chairs (4)120.00 Dining table175.00 Coffee table45.00 Drawers (3)150.00 Single bed and mattress (2)122.00 Double bed and mattress50.00 DescriptionAmount ($) Jug25.00 Toaster45.00 Frying pans (2)18.00 Queen sheet25.00 Pots (3)39.00 Crockery12.00 Cutlery12.00 Bedroom net curtains (2)32.00 Ranchslider curtain25.00 Bedroom set of drapes (2)138.00 Replacement of damaged doors, paint, labour1,411.00 Windows breakages (prior award)163.18 Further glass window breakages497.95 Exemplary damages for exceeding occupants500.00 Exemplary damages for unlawful subletting750.00 Reimbursement of filing fee (x2)40.88 Total23,179.29

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenants did not attend.
The Landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenants owe rent at the end of the tenancy?

The Landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. In a previous hearing I refused to award the full amount of rent arrears. However, the Landlord has provided information to suggest it did not delay in taking steps to end the tenancy when it became aware of the arrears.
Accordingly, in consolidating the previous two orders, into a single order, I award the full amount of rent payable at the end of the tenancy: $14,994.29.
The Landlord has also claimed lost rent, given extensive remedial work required to ready the home for re-tenanting. The Landlord claims it lost three weeks’ rent due to it needing to fix and repaint internal doors damaged by the Tenants, which I said would account for two weeks at most, and approximately a week to secure a new tenant at short notice, which timeframe should surely overlap with the initial two weeks, as the Landlord would be actively looking for tenants, and there does not appear to be any shortage in suitable tenants in the Rotorua area at this time, given the shortage of housing.
I award an additional $1,280.00 in lost rent.

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

Under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the tenant must: a) Leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. b) Remove all rubbish. c) Return all keys and security devices. d) Leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
The Tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The cost of removal of the Tenants’ furniture, not belonging to the Landlord came to $900.00 – previously awarded and consolidated into this Order.
Cleaning charges, including disposing of rotten food and dog droppings, amounted to $960.00. I have seen photographic evidence supplied by the Landlord and accept his evidence as to the general state and condition of the premises upon his recovering possession of it, and the level of cleaning required to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy. (I have included their replacement cost alongside, supported by the website catalogue references of several local, reputable suppliers, produced by the Landlord at the hearing): a) 1 x remote control for heat pump: $59.99 b) 1 x microwave: $139.00 c) 1 x washing machine: $350.00 d) 1 x blue rug: $100.00 e) 4 x chairs: $120.00 f) 1 x dining table: $175.00 g) 1 x coffee table: $45.00 h) 3 x drawers: $150.00 i) 2 x single bed and mattress: $122.00 j) 1 x double bed and mattress: $50.00 k) 1 x jug: $25.00 l) 1 x toaster: $45.00 m) 2 x frying pan: $18.00 n) 1 x queen sheet: $25.00 o) 3 x pots: $39.00 p) Crockery: $12.00 q) Cutlery: $12.00 r) 2 x bedroom net curtains: $32.00 s) 1 x ranchslider curtain: $25.00 t) 2 x bedroom set of drapes: $138.00
I accept the Landlord’s unchallenged evidence that all these items were present at the commencement of the tenancy and missing at the end.
Under section 40(2)(a), section 41, and section 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986: a) The landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. b) If proven, the tenants must prove they did not cause the damage carelessly or intentionally.
Damage identified: a) Invoice 8146207 for replacement of damaged doors, paint, and labour: $1,411.00 b) Windows breakages, prior to termination, previously awarded: $163.18 c) Further glass window breakages (invoice 0026747): $497.95
The damage is established with reference to the Landlord’s unchallenged evidence. The challenge is more than fair wear and tear, and the Tenants have not disproved liability.
The amounts ordered are proved, and the landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations. Depreciation has been taken into account.

Did the Tenants interfere with their neighbours' quiet enjoyment?

The Landlord claims the Tenants have disturbed their neighbours.
A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood: s 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00: s 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The Landlord claims he spoke with an individual living at the address who was present at the last Tribunal hearing. The individual attempted to access an adjacent unit owned and tenanted by the Landlord. When confronted, the individual made offensive remarks and acted aggressively. The Landlord called the Police. While the Tenants are responsible for this individual’s actions, there is insufficient evidence to establish a pattern of behaviour constituting harassment of the neighbouring tenant, nor is there direct evidence from the neighbour regarding the impact of this individual’s actions.

Did the Tenants exceed the maximum number of occupants at the premises?

Jasu Mati Bhana And Stephen Chiman Bhana As Trustees For The Ranolf Trust claim that the number of people living at the premises exceeds the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, a tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded: s 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00: s 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement specifies that the maximum number of three adults may live in the premises during the tenancy.
The Landlord states: a) Two months after the Tenants moved in there were five people in the home. b) The Landlord expressed his concerns to the Tenants and asked them to comply with the Tenancy Agreement. (There is no s 14 breach notice, but the Landlord’s evidence is not challenged.) c) After a further month, more people came to stay. d) After another month, another individual was bailed to the address.
I find the Tenants have committed an unlawful act.
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.
The Tenants knowingly allowed more occupants than permitted by the tenancy agreement, causing strain on the premises and inconvenience to the Landlord.
Considering the intentional nature of this breach, its impact, the need to uphold tenancy standards, and ensure maintenance and observance of the law, exemplary damages of $500.00 are awarded.

Did the Tenants unlawfully sublet the premises?

Jasu Mati Bhana And Stephen Chiman Bhana As Trustees For The Ranolf Trust claim the tenants have sublet or parted with possession of the premises without their prior written consent.
In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In a conversation with one of the Tenants who advised that her father was one of the extra individuals living at the property and he was paying money toward the rent.
I am satisfied that the Tenants have committed an unlawful act.
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.
The Tenants intentionally sublet part of the premises without seeking the required consent, undermining the Landlord’s control over the tenancy and potentially affecting the property’s condition. There is some overlap with the Landlord’s claim in respect to the Tenants exceeding the maximum number of occupants at the premises, but damages are awarded for the action of accepting rent for the premises, without the Landlord’s knowledge, while exceeding the maximum number of occupants, and while not paying rent for long periods of time. Considering these factors, exemplary damages of $750.00 are awarded. Filing Fee
Because Jasu Mati Bhana And Stephen Chiman Bhana As Trustees For The Ranolf Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Addendum
The Order has been reissued as the Landlord says there was no bond paid at the commencement of the tenancy.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4838226. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
huriarangi, and Miriama Paparoa are to pay Jasu Mati Bhana And Stephen Chiman Bhana As Trustees For The Ranolf Trust a t	$23,179.29		huriarangi, and Miriama Paparoa are to pay Jasu Mati Bhana And Stephen Chiman Bhana As Trustees For The Ranolf Trust a t

Claims and awards for application 4838226. Verify on MoJ.

huriarangi, and Miriama Paparoa are to pay Jasu Mati Bhana And Stephen Chiman Bhana As Trustees For The Ranolf Trust a t

Amount: $23,179.29
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: huriarangi, and Miriama Paparoa are to pay Jasu Mati Bhana And Stephen Chiman Bhana As Trustees For The Ranolf Trust a t

Order

This Tribunal Order supersedes the Tribunal Order of 13 November 2023 (App. 4709023) and the Tribunal Order of 24 January 2024 (App. 4709023).
Peyton (Gill) Tahuriarangi, Ururoa George Tahuriarangi, and Miriama Paparoa are to pay Jasu Mati Bhana And Stephen Chiman Bhana As Trustees For The Ranolf Trust a total amount of $23,179.29 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionAmount ($) Rent arrears14,994.29 Lost rent1,280.00 Removal of tenant's furniture900.00 Cleaning charges960.00 Remote control for heat pump59.99 Microwave139.00 Washing machine350.00 Blue rug100.00 Chairs (4)120.00 Dining table175.00 Coffee table45.00 Drawers (3)150.00 Single bed and mattress (2)122.00 Double bed and mattress50.00 DescriptionAmount ($) Jug25.00 Toaster45.00 Frying pans (2)18.00 Queen sheet25.00 Pots (3)39.00 Crockery12.00 Cutlery12.00 Bedroom net curtains (2)32.00 Ranchslider curtain25.00 Bedroom set of drapes (2)138.00 Replacement of damaged doors, paint, labour1,411.00 Windows breakages (prior award)163.18 Further glass window breakages497.95 Exemplary damages for exceeding occupants500.00 Exemplary damages for unlawful subletting750.00 Reimbursement of filing fee (x2)40.88 Total23,179.29

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenants did not attend.
The Landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenants owe rent at the end of the tenancy?

The Landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. In a previous hearing I refused to award the full amount of rent arrears. However, the Landlord has provided information to suggest it did not delay in taking steps to end the tenancy when it became aware of the arrears.
Accordingly, in consolidating the previous two orders, into a single order, I award the full amount of rent payable at the end of the tenancy: $14,994.29.
The Landlord has also claimed lost rent, given extensive remedial work required to ready the home for re-tenanting. The Landlord claims it lost three weeks’ rent due to it needing to fix and repaint internal doors damaged by the Tenants, which I said would account for two weeks at most, and approximately a week to secure a new tenant at short notice, which timeframe should surely overlap with the initial two weeks, as the Landlord would be actively looking for tenants, and there does not appear to be any shortage in suitable tenants in the Rotorua area at this time, given the shortage of housing.
I award an additional $1,280.00 in lost rent.

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

Under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the tenant must: a) Leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. b) Remove all rubbish. c) Return all keys and security devices. d) Leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
The Tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The cost of removal of the Tenants’ furniture, not belonging to the Landlord came to $900.00 – previously awarded and consolidated into this Order.
Cleaning charges, including disposing of rotten food and dog droppings, amounted to $960.00. I have seen photographic evidence supplied by the Landlord and accept his evidence as to the general state and condition of the premises upon his recovering possession of it, and the level of cleaning required to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy. (I have included their replacement cost alongside, supported by the website catalogue references of several local, reputable suppliers, produced by the Landlord at the hearing): a) 1 x remote control for heat pump: $59.99 b) 1 x microwave: $139.00 c) 1 x washing machine: $350.00 d) 1 x blue rug: $100.00 e) 4 x chairs: $120.00 f) 1 x dining table: $175.00 g) 1 x coffee table: $45.00 h) 3 x drawers: $150.00 i) 2 x single bed and mattress: $122.00 j) 1 x double bed and mattress: $50.00 k) 1 x jug: $25.00 l) 1 x toaster: $45.00 m) 2 x frying pan: $18.00 n) 1 x queen sheet: $25.00 o) 3 x pots: $39.00 p) Crockery: $12.00 q) Cutlery: $12.00 r) 2 x bedroom net curtains: $32.00 s) 1 x ranchslider curtain: $25.00 t) 2 x bedroom set of drapes: $138.00
I accept the Landlord’s unchallenged evidence that all these items were present at the commencement of the tenancy and missing at the end.
Under section 40(2)(a), section 41, and section 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986: a) The landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. b) If proven, the tenants must prove they did not cause the damage carelessly or intentionally.
Damage identified: a) Invoice 8146207 for replacement of damaged doors, paint, and labour: $1,411.00 b) Windows breakages, prior to termination, previously awarded: $163.18 c) Further glass window breakages (invoice 0026747): $497.95
The damage is established with reference to the Landlord’s unchallenged evidence. The challenge is more than fair wear and tear, and the Tenants have not disproved liability.
The amounts ordered are proved, and the landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations. Depreciation has been taken into account.

Did the Tenants interfere with their neighbours' quiet enjoyment?

The Landlord claims the Tenants have disturbed their neighbours.
A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood: s 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00: s 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The Landlord claims he spoke with an individual living at the address who was present at the last Tribunal hearing. The individual attempted to access an adjacent unit owned and tenanted by the Landlord. When confronted, the individual made offensive remarks and acted aggressively. The Landlord called the Police. While the Tenants are responsible for this individual’s actions, there is insufficient evidence to establish a pattern of behaviour constituting harassment of the neighbouring tenant, nor is there direct evidence from the neighbour regarding the impact of this individual’s actions.

Did the Tenants exceed the maximum number of occupants at the premises?

Jasu Mati Bhana And Stephen Chiman Bhana As Trustees For The Ranolf Trust claim that the number of people living at the premises exceeds the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, a tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded: s 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00: s 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement specifies that the maximum number of three adults may live in the premises during the tenancy.
The Landlord states: a) Two months after the Tenants moved in there were five people in the home. b) The Landlord expressed his concerns to the Tenants and asked them to comply with the Tenancy Agreement. (There is no s 14 breach notice, but the Landlord’s evidence is not challenged.) c) After a further month, more people came to stay. d) After another month, another individual was bailed to the address.
I find the Tenants have committed an unlawful act.
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.
The Tenants knowingly allowed more occupants than permitted by the tenancy agreement, causing strain on the premises and inconvenience to the Landlord.
Considering the intentional nature of this breach, its impact, the need to uphold tenancy standards, and ensure maintenance and observance of the law, exemplary damages of $500.00 are awarded.

Did the Tenants unlawfully sublet the premises?

Jasu Mati Bhana And Stephen Chiman Bhana As Trustees For The Ranolf Trust claim the tenants have sublet or parted with possession of the premises without their prior written consent.
In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In a conversation with one of the Tenants who advised that her father was one of the extra individuals living at the property and he was paying money toward the rent.
I am satisfied that the Tenants have committed an unlawful act.
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.
The Tenants intentionally sublet part of the premises without seeking the required consent, undermining the Landlord’s control over the tenancy and potentially affecting the property’s condition. There is some overlap with the Landlord’s claim in respect to the Tenants exceeding the maximum number of occupants at the premises, but damages are awarded for the action of accepting rent for the premises, without the Landlord’s knowledge, while exceeding the maximum number of occupants, and while not paying rent for long periods of time. Considering these factors, exemplary damages of $750.00 are awarded. Filing Fee
Because Jasu Mati Bhana And Stephen Chiman Bhana As Trustees For The Ranolf Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Addendum
The Order has been reissued as the Landlord says there was no bond paid at the commencement of the tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4838226 — Rent arrears at 90G Ranolf Street, Victoria, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4838226 — Rent arrears at 90G Ranolf Street, Victoria, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants owe rent at the end of the tenancy?

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

Did the Tenants interfere with their neighbours' quiet enjoyment?

Did the Tenants exceed the maximum number of occupants at the premises?

Did the Tenants unlawfully sublet the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants owe rent at the end of the tenancy?

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

Did the Tenants interfere with their neighbours' quiet enjoyment?

Did the Tenants exceed the maximum number of occupants at the premises?

Did the Tenants unlawfully sublet the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions