What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4842925?

The tribunal order states: Neva Nonu must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Prasad, Suruj

How much money was awarded in case 4842925?

Cleaning: $215.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $135.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4758277 D…: $3,264.98 awarded to landlord; Walls: $95.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $689.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4842925?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4842925?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10545711-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4842925?

The tribunal order states: Neva Nonu must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Prasad, Suruj

How much money was awarded in case 4842925?

Cleaning: $215.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $135.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4758277 D…: $3,264.98 awarded to landlord; Walls: $95.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $689.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4842925?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4842925?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10545711-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 9 Marr Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4842925 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4842925 — net $4,549.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4758277 dated 31/01/2024	$3,264.98	Previous order application 4758277 dated 31/01/2024
Rubbish removal	$689.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$215.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$90.00	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement: Front door lock	$135.00	Lock/key replacement: Front door lock
Lock/key replacement: Lost keys x4	$40.00	Lock/key replacement: Lost keys x4
Repairs: Walls	$95.00	Repairs: Walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,549.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,549.42

Neva Nonu must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Prasad, Suruj & Usha $4,549.42 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Previous order application 4758277 dated 31/01/2024$3,264.98 Rubbish removal$689.00 Cleaning$215.00 Lawns and Garden work$90.00 Lock/key replacement: Front door lock$135.00 Lock/key replacement: Lost keys x4$40.00 Repairs: Walls$95.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$4,549.42 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,549.42

Reasons

Ms Clover attended the hearing as landlord’s agent.

Mr Nonu, the tenant, did not attend the hearing. I understand Mr Nonu did not attend the Tribunal hearing on 31 January 2024 either.

The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, mow the lawn under the tenancy agreement, and did not remove all rubbish.

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: a. Front door lock; and b. Holes in walls.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee

Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Prasad, Suruj & Usha has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4842925 — net $4,549.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4758277 dated 31/01/2024	$3,264.98	Previous order application 4758277 dated 31/01/2024
Rubbish removal	$689.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$215.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$90.00	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement: Front door lock	$135.00	Lock/key replacement: Front door lock
Lock/key replacement: Lost keys x4	$40.00	Lock/key replacement: Lost keys x4
Repairs: Walls	$95.00	Repairs: Walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,549.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,549.42

Order

Neva Nonu must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Prasad, Suruj & Usha $4,549.42 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Previous order application 4758277 dated 31/01/2024$3,264.98 Rubbish removal$689.00 Cleaning$215.00 Lawns and Garden work$90.00 Lock/key replacement: Front door lock$135.00 Lock/key replacement: Lost keys x4$40.00 Repairs: Walls$95.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$4,549.42 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,549.42

Reasons

Ms Clover attended the hearing as landlord’s agent.
Mr Nonu, the tenant, did not attend the hearing. I understand Mr Nonu did not attend the Tribunal hearing on 31 January 2024 either.
The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, mow the lawn under the tenancy agreement, and did not remove all rubbish.
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: a. Front door lock; and b. Holes in walls.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Prasad, Suruj & Usha has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4842925 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 3, 9 Marr Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4842925 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 3, 9 Marr Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

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