What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4839971?

The tribunal order states: Michael Mamea, Gloria Mamea and Angela Mamea must pay Barfoot &

How much money was awarded in case 4839971?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $335.56 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $568.10 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $569.67 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4839971?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4839971?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10718334-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4839971?

The tribunal order states: Michael Mamea, Gloria Mamea and Angela Mamea must pay Barfoot &

How much money was awarded in case 4839971?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $335.56 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $568.10 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $569.67 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4839971?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4839971?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10718334-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

18 Ivon Road, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4839971 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4839971 — net $3,993.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,000.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$569.67	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$568.10	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$335.56	Lock/key replacement
Repairs	$2,500.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,993.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,993.77

Order

Michael Mamea, Gloria Mamea and Angela Mamea must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited $3,993.77 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (3409067-014) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Michael Mamea attended on behalf of all three tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy began on 25 July 2021. It was initially for a fixed term due to end on 25 July 2022.
There were two extensions of the tenancy, and the last extension was signed in May and June 2023. The tenancy was for a fixed term due to end on 25 July 2024. Abandonment
On 24 January 2024 the tenant sent an email to the landlord’s previous agent advising that the other two tenants had moved overseas, he was experiencing financial hardship and he wanted the tenancy to end. The tenant said that he had difficulty knowing whom to communicate about the tenancy. He abandoned the tenancy sometime in January 2024.
Barfoot and Thompson took over the management of the tenancy on 2 February 2024. The landlord said that the tenant was advised about this change by the owner and that advice was given verbally. At the hearing the landlord was unable to produce any evidence to show that the tenant was advised. Section 16 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that where there has been a change in name or address that change must be communicated to the other party within 10 working days. It appears that this did not occur.
If the tenant knew the contact details for the landlord’s new agent there could have been communication between the parties in relation to possible agreement to an early end of the fixed term tenancy. Also, the tenant was not aware that he could apply for reduction or termination of the fixed term tenancy 1 .
At the hearing the landlord said that Barfoot and Thompson discovered that the tenancy had been abandoned on 2 February 2024. I note that no application was filed to terminate the tenancy due to abandonment 2 . I also note that such an application can be dealt with on an urgent basis by the Tribunal and within 10 working days without a hearing 3 .
The landlord did not seek termination but instead took possession on the basis that the tenant had left. The landlord said that from February to June 2024 1 Section 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 61 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 3 Section 91AA Residential Tenancies Act 1986 repairs were carried out at the premises and therefore a new tenancy did not start until 16 June 2024. Rent arrears
The rent arrears have continued over six months without the landlord taking any steps to mitigate the tenant’s loss.
Section 49 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
At the hearing the landlord claims rent arrears of $18,260.00 which is the amount owed up until the new tenancy commenced. I note from the rent summary that the tenants had been in arrears on and off through the tenancy but consistently more than a week in arrears from January 2024.
By the time the landlord applied to the Tribunal the rent arrears were over $7,000.00. The landlord could have applied for expediated abandonment in February 2024 and taken steps for a new tenancy to begin. While the landlord says that repairs were carried out over a six-month period (February 2024 to June 2024) no evidence was produced to support this and I don’t accept that the damage caused by the tenant was to such an extent that six months would be required for the repairs to be carried out.
The landlord said that the premises had been contaminated with methamphetamine, but the landlord had failed to carry out a pre tenancy test and therefore no evidence was produced, or orders sought in relation to any contamination. The landlord said that the owner had been successful with an insurance claim for decontamination but not for loss of rent.
I have awarded rent arrears for the period from 23 November 2023 until 23 February 2023. This reduction is made for the following reasons: (a) The tenant was not advised of the change of agent for the landlord and therefore did not have an opportunity to negotiate an early end to the tenancy. (b) When Barfoot and Thompson took over the agency the rent was in arrears by $2,860.00. It took three weeks to discover that the premises had been abandoned. At that stage rent arrears was $5,170.00. (c) The landlord claims that the premises could not be re tenanted until June 2024 due to repairs needed. The repairs claimed would not take six months to complete. There is no evidence that the tenant is responsible for the presence of methamphetamine at the premises or that it reached the threshold of contamination. (d) The landlord had failed to mitigate the tenant’s loss in relation to rent arrears. There had been arrears since December 2022. There is no evidence that the tenant was issued with a 14-day notice in relation to rent arrears until February 2024. A reasonable landlord would have taken steps months earlier. Water rates
In relation to the water rates owed, the tenant last paid water rates in March 2022. For over two years no payment was received toward water rates, but the landlord took no steps in relation to this. A reasonable landlord would mitigate the tenant’s loss by applying to the Tribunal for unpaid water rates.
Due to the landlord’s failure to mitigate I am awarding water rates for the last six months from September 2023 to February 2024 which amounts to $569.67. Cleaning and rubbish removal
The landlord claims for cleaning and rubbish removal after the tenant left the tenancy.
The landlord produced photographs showing that rubbish was left at the premises, so I have made an award in relation to rubbish removal.
The tenant is required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state 4 . The photographs produced by the landlord do not show that the premises were not reasonably clean (other than for the rubbish which I have made an award for). The landlord’s claim for cleaning is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for damage to the premises and in particular wall holes and a damaged door.
The tenant acknowledged the damage. He said that he attempted to repair the wall holes and spent some time trying to find a door lock to replace the broken one.
There was no evidence produced in relation to a damaged tap. Also, in relation to the garden edging claimed for the tenant advised that he had put the garden edging in. I have not allowed these parts of the claim for damages and therefore I have reduced the claim to $2,500.00. 4 Section 40(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4839971 — net $3,993.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,000.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$569.67	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$568.10	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$335.56	Lock/key replacement
Repairs	$2,500.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,993.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,993.77

Order

Michael Mamea, Gloria Mamea and Angela Mamea must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited $3,993.77 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (3409067-014) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Michael Mamea attended on behalf of all three tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy began on 25 July 2021. It was initially for a fixed term due to end on 25 July 2022.
There were two extensions of the tenancy, and the last extension was signed in May and June 2023. The tenancy was for a fixed term due to end on 25 July 2024. Abandonment
On 24 January 2024 the tenant sent an email to the landlord’s previous agent advising that the other two tenants had moved overseas, he was experiencing financial hardship and he wanted the tenancy to end. The tenant said that he had difficulty knowing whom to communicate about the tenancy. He abandoned the tenancy sometime in January 2024.
Barfoot and Thompson took over the management of the tenancy on 2 February 2024. The landlord said that the tenant was advised about this change by the owner and that advice was given verbally. At the hearing the landlord was unable to produce any evidence to show that the tenant was advised. Section 16 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that where there has been a change in name or address that change must be communicated to the other party within 10 working days. It appears that this did not occur.
If the tenant knew the contact details for the landlord’s new agent there could have been communication between the parties in relation to possible agreement to an early end of the fixed term tenancy. Also, the tenant was not aware that he could apply for reduction or termination of the fixed term tenancy 1 .
At the hearing the landlord said that Barfoot and Thompson discovered that the tenancy had been abandoned on 2 February 2024. I note that no application was filed to terminate the tenancy due to abandonment 2 . I also note that such an application can be dealt with on an urgent basis by the Tribunal and within 10 working days without a hearing 3 .
The landlord did not seek termination but instead took possession on the basis that the tenant had left. The landlord said that from February to June 2024 1 Section 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 61 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 3 Section 91AA Residential Tenancies Act 1986 repairs were carried out at the premises and therefore a new tenancy did not start until 16 June 2024. Rent arrears
The rent arrears have continued over six months without the landlord taking any steps to mitigate the tenant’s loss.
Section 49 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
At the hearing the landlord claims rent arrears of $18,260.00 which is the amount owed up until the new tenancy commenced. I note from the rent summary that the tenants had been in arrears on and off through the tenancy but consistently more than a week in arrears from January 2024.
By the time the landlord applied to the Tribunal the rent arrears were over $7,000.00. The landlord could have applied for expediated abandonment in February 2024 and taken steps for a new tenancy to begin. While the landlord says that repairs were carried out over a six-month period (February 2024 to June 2024) no evidence was produced to support this and I don’t accept that the damage caused by the tenant was to such an extent that six months would be required for the repairs to be carried out.
The landlord said that the premises had been contaminated with methamphetamine, but the landlord had failed to carry out a pre tenancy test and therefore no evidence was produced, or orders sought in relation to any contamination. The landlord said that the owner had been successful with an insurance claim for decontamination but not for loss of rent.
I have awarded rent arrears for the period from 23 November 2023 until 23 February 2023. This reduction is made for the following reasons: (a) The tenant was not advised of the change of agent for the landlord and therefore did not have an opportunity to negotiate an early end to the tenancy. (b) When Barfoot and Thompson took over the agency the rent was in arrears by $2,860.00. It took three weeks to discover that the premises had been abandoned. At that stage rent arrears was $5,170.00. (c) The landlord claims that the premises could not be re tenanted until June 2024 due to repairs needed. The repairs claimed would not take six months to complete. There is no evidence that the tenant is responsible for the presence of methamphetamine at the premises or that it reached the threshold of contamination. (d) The landlord had failed to mitigate the tenant’s loss in relation to rent arrears. There had been arrears since December 2022. There is no evidence that the tenant was issued with a 14-day notice in relation to rent arrears until February 2024. A reasonable landlord would have taken steps months earlier. Water rates
In relation to the water rates owed, the tenant last paid water rates in March 2022. For over two years no payment was received toward water rates, but the landlord took no steps in relation to this. A reasonable landlord would mitigate the tenant’s loss by applying to the Tribunal for unpaid water rates.
Due to the landlord’s failure to mitigate I am awarding water rates for the last six months from September 2023 to February 2024 which amounts to $569.67. Cleaning and rubbish removal
The landlord claims for cleaning and rubbish removal after the tenant left the tenancy.
The landlord produced photographs showing that rubbish was left at the premises, so I have made an award in relation to rubbish removal.
The tenant is required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state 4 . The photographs produced by the landlord do not show that the premises were not reasonably clean (other than for the rubbish which I have made an award for). The landlord’s claim for cleaning is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for damage to the premises and in particular wall holes and a damaged door.
The tenant acknowledged the damage. He said that he attempted to repair the wall holes and spent some time trying to find a door lock to replace the broken one.
There was no evidence produced in relation to a damaged tap. Also, in relation to the garden edging claimed for the tenant advised that he had put the garden edging in. I have not allowed these parts of the claim for damages and therefore I have reduced the claim to $2,500.00. 4 Section 40(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4839971 — Rent arrears at 18 Ivon Road, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4839971 — Rent arrears at 18 Ivon Road, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions