What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4842580?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Pardeep Singh and Swati Vaid at Unit/Flat 311, 53 Cook Street,

How much money was awarded in case 4842580?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $229.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,428.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4842580?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4842580?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10283649-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4842580?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Pardeep Singh and Swati Vaid at Unit/Flat 311, 53 Cook Street,

How much money was awarded in case 4842580?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $229.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,428.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4842580?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4842580?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10283649-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 311, 53 Cook Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4842580 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4842580 — net $2,478.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 May 2024	$3,428.57	Rent arrears to 2 May 2024
Repairs (fridge	$229.25	Repairs (fridge
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,478.26
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,478.26

The tenancy of Pardeep Singh and Swati Vaid at Unit/Flat 311, 53 Cook Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010, Aura Apartments is terminated, and possession is granted to Supercity Property Management Limited As Agent For Na Wu, at 11.59pm on Monday 6 May 2024.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 (5524481-007) to Supercity Property Management Limited As Agent For Na Wu immediately.

Pardeep Singh and Swati Vaid must pay Supercity Property Management Limited As Agent For Na Wu $2,478.26 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing by video. The Tenants did not attend by video and did not answer the telephone calls made by the Tribunal on the phone number provided.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

How much is owed in rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.

The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to pay their rent when it was due.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 21 March 2024 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the Tenants have been consistently in arrears over the past year.

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: Damage to the fridge. An invoice was provided to substantiate the cause of the damage and the cost to repair. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

As Supercity Property Management Limited As Agent For Na Wu has wholly succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4842580 — net $2,478.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 May 2024	$3,428.57	Rent arrears to 2 May 2024
Repairs (fridge	$229.25	Repairs (fridge
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,478.26
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,478.26

Order

The tenancy of Pardeep Singh and Swati Vaid at Unit/Flat 311, 53 Cook Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010, Aura Apartments is terminated, and possession is granted to Supercity Property Management Limited As Agent For Na Wu, at 11.59pm on Monday 6 May 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 (5524481-007) to Supercity Property Management Limited As Agent For Na Wu immediately.
Pardeep Singh and Swati Vaid must pay Supercity Property Management Limited As Agent For Na Wu $2,478.26 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing by video. The Tenants did not attend by video and did not answer the telephone calls made by the Tribunal on the phone number provided.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

How much is owed in rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to pay their rent when it was due.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 21 March 2024 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the Tenants have been consistently in arrears over the past year.

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: Damage to the fridge. An invoice was provided to substantiate the cause of the damage and the cost to repair. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As Supercity Property Management Limited As Agent For Na Wu has wholly succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4842580 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 311, 53 Cook Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4842580 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 311, 53 Cook Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed in rent?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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

How much is owed in rent?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions