What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4853080?

The tribunal order states: Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited must pay Arick & Sunanda John Trading As Senorita &

How much money was awarded in case 4853080?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,900.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,183.50 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $2,511.48 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4853080?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4853080?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11331788-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4853080?

The tribunal order states: Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited must pay Arick & Sunanda John Trading As Senorita &

How much money was awarded in case 4853080?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,900.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,183.50 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $2,511.48 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4853080?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4853080?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11331788-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11A Woodvale Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4853080 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4853080 — net $6,365.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs; general	$1,900.00	Repairs; general
Repairs: garage door	$450.00	Repairs: garage door
Electrical fittings replacement/repair; general	$1,183.50	Electrical fittings replacement/repair; general
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: washing machine	$300.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: washing machine
Water rates	$2,511.48	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,365.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,365.42

Order

Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited must pay Arick & Sunanda John Trading As Senorita & Mark Limited $6,365.42 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims not included in the above award, are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing: Ms Fesolai and Ms Moka attended as representatives of Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited.
The landlord has applied for compensation, damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The parties confirmed that the tenancy lasted from 14 February 2022 until 13 April 2024.
By agreement of the parties, Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited acted as a sub-landlord and sublet the property to another tenant. This creates an exception to the application of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) under section 5(s).
Both parties then agreed to contract back in to the RTA.

How much is owed water rates?

During a tenancy the tenant (in this case the sub-landlord) is liable for water and waste-water consumption charges, and the landlord is responsible for fixed charges.
During this tenancy, none of the water bills were paid. The landlord produced water rates invoices that prove $2,511.48 is outstanding for the water and waste water consumption portion of the bill.
Because of the arrangement between the landlord, sub-landlord and tenant, there was an extra layer of complexity in this tenancy compared to most tenancy agreements. This allowed each of the parties some reason to claim that the other party was responsible for the water bills not being paid.
The water bills were sent by Watercare to the tenancy address on a regular basis. They were addressed to the landlord, who lived in another town and was not known to the occupant (the tenant).
The landlord says because they were never invoiced, they believed the tenants were paying all of the bill – both the portion the tenant is liable for and the portion the landlord is liable for.
The sub-landlord explained that at Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited, the water bills are managed by the water team which is separate to the tenancy team. This meant the tenancy team wasn’t aware the water bills weren’t being paid. The sub- landlord also pointed to the agreement they had with the landlord that says it is the landlord’s responsibility to send the water bills to the sub-landlord. The sub- landlord says because the landlord didn’t do this, the sub-landlord should not be liable for the bills.
Although the sub-landlord didn’t make the point, there is a legal argument that may support their view: Section 49 of the RTA requires a party that is in breach of the Act to mitigate their loss. This may be interpreted to mean that because the landlord did not send water rates bills to the sub-landlord on a regular basis as they ought to have done, they should now mitigate the sub-landlord against the loss: This would mean the sub-landlord would be liable only for a lesser amount of the debt.
While there may be merit in this point of view, I have a different view. Irrespective of who was responsible for forwarding the invoices to whom, and the breakdown of this process, it was the sub-landlord’s responsibility to pay for water and waste water consumption charges. They knew, or ought to have known that their portion of the invoice was not being paid, and made enquiries to rectify the issue. To not do so is to sit on one’s hands and hope that they get away with it. There is a legal principle that for a party to seek a remedy in equity, they must have acted equitably themselves. In my view, each of the other two players involved in the process are less culpable because it wasn’t their ultimate responsibility to pay this portion of the bill.
I also note that Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited is a professional sub-landlord, and also that Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited’s tenant received the water bills (addressed to the owner) throughout the tenancy. Although they could not lawfully open this mail, it appears they neither returned the mail to sender, nor alerted Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited to this fact. My view is that the bulk of the burden of responsibility for the water bills not being paid, falls to Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited and their tenant.
However, after all the finger pointing is done, the bills still need to be paid, and in my view the correct remedy is that each party pay the portion they should each have been paying.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must 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 landlord claimed that at the end of the tenancy two remote controls for two heat pumps were missing and four light bulbs needed replacing along with their respective light fittings. The landlord provided photographs that show two light fittings had been painted over or covered up.
The sub-landlord claimed that only one remote control was listed on the start of tenancy inspection form.
I find it proved that one remote control and two light bulbs needed replacing which were the responsibility of the sub-landlord.
The landlord provided an invoice for $1,483.50 from Safety Electrical Solutions which include these amounts claimed as well as repairs to other damage. I have deducted $300.00 for the remote, the light bulbs and light fittings and their installation. The amount is proved.
The landlord also claims that a washing machine was removed during the tenancy. The sub-landlord accepted this. The washing machine was approximately 2 years old at the beginning of the tenancy, and four years old at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord was unable to provide an invoice for the replacement but said the replacement value was between $900.00 and $1,000.00. Washing machines have a life span of 6.66 years in the IRD General Depreciation schedule of August 2024 (the “IR265”). I have awarded $300.00 in compensation for the landlord’s loss.

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.
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 landlord is claiming for the following damage that occurred during the tenancy: a. Damage to the washing line, b. The kitchen benchtop collapsing, c. Two kitchen drawers and a kitchen cupboard door being removed, d. The bedroom door coming partially off its hinges, e. Cupboard doors in the bathroom being removed, f. The garage door being backed into and dented, g. Many wires that were cut and removed, h. Low levels of methamphetamine contamination, i. Scratches on the floor and on architrave from a dog, j. The stove no longer working, k. The dishwasher no longer working, l. Holes in the wall.
The landlord provided invoices for $10,489.00 which covered considerable general maintenance, cleaning and some renovation. Some of what is included in the invoice is not the responsibility of the tenant. The invoice does not provide a breakdown of costs.
The landlord also provided an invoice for $450.00 for repairs to the garage door, and an invoice for $321.94 for methamphetamine testing and consulting.
The sub-landlord accepted the damage to the washing line, the kitchen drawers and cupboard door being removed, and the holes in the wall. I find these claims proved and award $150.00, $850.00 (including painting) and $300.00 respectively.
The kitchen benchtop and the dishwasher both exceed their depreciation timeframe according to the IR265 and therefore I make no award for compensation.
The sub-landlord was not able to attend when the landlord conducted the end of tenancy inspection, but stated the bedroom door was not off its hinges when they conducted their end of tenancy inspection, and the cupboard doors in the bathroom had not been removed.
However the photographs that the landlord produced are sufficient to prove to me that when they conducted their end of tenancy inspection, the bedroom door was off its hinges and the cupboard doors had been removed. I find these claims proved and award $50.00 and $100.00 respectively.
I also find the claim of damage to the architrave by a dog and partial damage to the floor by furniture being dragged proved, and award $200.00 compensation.
The sub-landlord disputed the garage door being damaged and stated she didn’t remember a conversation that the landlord said he made to her in November 2023 regarding the tenant backing her car into the garage, then finding an opening in the garage and removing some of the landlord’s belongings.
I am persuaded based on the details of the landlord’s evidence and my assessment of his credibility that he is telling the truth regarding the damage to the garage door. The landlord’s claim for $450.00 for repairs to the garage is proved.
The sub-landlord did not dispute that many wires had been cut and removed from the tenancy. These repairs are included in the invoice for $1,483.50 and the award that I have made in relation to that invoice at paragraph 17.
The sub-landlord stated that because the methamphetamine levels were below the levels that deem decontamination measures necessary by law, no award for cleaning should be made.
The landlord stated that even though the levels were not high, the pre-tenancy test and the end of tenancy test clearly show that methamphetamine contamination has occurred at the premises during this tenancy, and the premises needed to be cleaned prior to subsequently being re-tenanted.
While I have not awarded an amount for the methamphetamine testing, I do find the low level of contamination proved, and I have awarded $250.00 for cleaning.
The landlord was not able to explain why it was that the stove was not working. Photographs show the stove to be in a reasonable state of repair. I do not find this claim proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because Arick & Sunanda John Trading As Senorita & Mark Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4853080 — net $6,365.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs; general	$1,900.00	Repairs; general
Repairs: garage door	$450.00	Repairs: garage door
Electrical fittings replacement/repair; general	$1,183.50	Electrical fittings replacement/repair; general
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: washing machine	$300.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: washing machine
Water rates	$2,511.48	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,365.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,365.42

Order

Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited must pay Arick & Sunanda John Trading As Senorita & Mark Limited $6,365.42 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims not included in the above award, are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing: Ms Fesolai and Ms Moka attended as representatives of Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited.
The landlord has applied for compensation, damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The parties confirmed that the tenancy lasted from 14 February 2022 until 13 April 2024.
By agreement of the parties, Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited acted as a sub-landlord and sublet the property to another tenant. This creates an exception to the application of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) under section 5(s).
Both parties then agreed to contract back in to the RTA.

How much is owed water rates?

During a tenancy the tenant (in this case the sub-landlord) is liable for water and waste-water consumption charges, and the landlord is responsible for fixed charges.
During this tenancy, none of the water bills were paid. The landlord produced water rates invoices that prove $2,511.48 is outstanding for the water and waste water consumption portion of the bill.
Because of the arrangement between the landlord, sub-landlord and tenant, there was an extra layer of complexity in this tenancy compared to most tenancy agreements. This allowed each of the parties some reason to claim that the other party was responsible for the water bills not being paid.
The water bills were sent by Watercare to the tenancy address on a regular basis. They were addressed to the landlord, who lived in another town and was not known to the occupant (the tenant).
The landlord says because they were never invoiced, they believed the tenants were paying all of the bill – both the portion the tenant is liable for and the portion the landlord is liable for.
The sub-landlord explained that at Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited, the water bills are managed by the water team which is separate to the tenancy team. This meant the tenancy team wasn’t aware the water bills weren’t being paid. The sub- landlord also pointed to the agreement they had with the landlord that says it is the landlord’s responsibility to send the water bills to the sub-landlord. The sub- landlord says because the landlord didn’t do this, the sub-landlord should not be liable for the bills.
Although the sub-landlord didn’t make the point, there is a legal argument that may support their view: Section 49 of the RTA requires a party that is in breach of the Act to mitigate their loss. This may be interpreted to mean that because the landlord did not send water rates bills to the sub-landlord on a regular basis as they ought to have done, they should now mitigate the sub-landlord against the loss: This would mean the sub-landlord would be liable only for a lesser amount of the debt.
While there may be merit in this point of view, I have a different view. Irrespective of who was responsible for forwarding the invoices to whom, and the breakdown of this process, it was the sub-landlord’s responsibility to pay for water and waste water consumption charges. They knew, or ought to have known that their portion of the invoice was not being paid, and made enquiries to rectify the issue. To not do so is to sit on one’s hands and hope that they get away with it. There is a legal principle that for a party to seek a remedy in equity, they must have acted equitably themselves. In my view, each of the other two players involved in the process are less culpable because it wasn’t their ultimate responsibility to pay this portion of the bill.
I also note that Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited is a professional sub-landlord, and also that Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited’s tenant received the water bills (addressed to the owner) throughout the tenancy. Although they could not lawfully open this mail, it appears they neither returned the mail to sender, nor alerted Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited to this fact. My view is that the bulk of the burden of responsibility for the water bills not being paid, falls to Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited and their tenant.
However, after all the finger pointing is done, the bills still need to be paid, and in my view the correct remedy is that each party pay the portion they should each have been paying.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must 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 landlord claimed that at the end of the tenancy two remote controls for two heat pumps were missing and four light bulbs needed replacing along with their respective light fittings. The landlord provided photographs that show two light fittings had been painted over or covered up.
The sub-landlord claimed that only one remote control was listed on the start of tenancy inspection form.
I find it proved that one remote control and two light bulbs needed replacing which were the responsibility of the sub-landlord.
The landlord provided an invoice for $1,483.50 from Safety Electrical Solutions which include these amounts claimed as well as repairs to other damage. I have deducted $300.00 for the remote, the light bulbs and light fittings and their installation. The amount is proved.
The landlord also claims that a washing machine was removed during the tenancy. The sub-landlord accepted this. The washing machine was approximately 2 years old at the beginning of the tenancy, and four years old at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord was unable to provide an invoice for the replacement but said the replacement value was between $900.00 and $1,000.00. Washing machines have a life span of 6.66 years in the IRD General Depreciation schedule of August 2024 (the “IR265”). I have awarded $300.00 in compensation for the landlord’s loss.

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.
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 landlord is claiming for the following damage that occurred during the tenancy: a. Damage to the washing line, b. The kitchen benchtop collapsing, c. Two kitchen drawers and a kitchen cupboard door being removed, d. The bedroom door coming partially off its hinges, e. Cupboard doors in the bathroom being removed, f. The garage door being backed into and dented, g. Many wires that were cut and removed, h. Low levels of methamphetamine contamination, i. Scratches on the floor and on architrave from a dog, j. The stove no longer working, k. The dishwasher no longer working, l. Holes in the wall.
The landlord provided invoices for $10,489.00 which covered considerable general maintenance, cleaning and some renovation. Some of what is included in the invoice is not the responsibility of the tenant. The invoice does not provide a breakdown of costs.
The landlord also provided an invoice for $450.00 for repairs to the garage door, and an invoice for $321.94 for methamphetamine testing and consulting.
The sub-landlord accepted the damage to the washing line, the kitchen drawers and cupboard door being removed, and the holes in the wall. I find these claims proved and award $150.00, $850.00 (including painting) and $300.00 respectively.
The kitchen benchtop and the dishwasher both exceed their depreciation timeframe according to the IR265 and therefore I make no award for compensation.
The sub-landlord was not able to attend when the landlord conducted the end of tenancy inspection, but stated the bedroom door was not off its hinges when they conducted their end of tenancy inspection, and the cupboard doors in the bathroom had not been removed.
However the photographs that the landlord produced are sufficient to prove to me that when they conducted their end of tenancy inspection, the bedroom door was off its hinges and the cupboard doors had been removed. I find these claims proved and award $50.00 and $100.00 respectively.
I also find the claim of damage to the architrave by a dog and partial damage to the floor by furniture being dragged proved, and award $200.00 compensation.
The sub-landlord disputed the garage door being damaged and stated she didn’t remember a conversation that the landlord said he made to her in November 2023 regarding the tenant backing her car into the garage, then finding an opening in the garage and removing some of the landlord’s belongings.
I am persuaded based on the details of the landlord’s evidence and my assessment of his credibility that he is telling the truth regarding the damage to the garage door. The landlord’s claim for $450.00 for repairs to the garage is proved.
The sub-landlord did not dispute that many wires had been cut and removed from the tenancy. These repairs are included in the invoice for $1,483.50 and the award that I have made in relation to that invoice at paragraph 17.
The sub-landlord stated that because the methamphetamine levels were below the levels that deem decontamination measures necessary by law, no award for cleaning should be made.
The landlord stated that even though the levels were not high, the pre-tenancy test and the end of tenancy test clearly show that methamphetamine contamination has occurred at the premises during this tenancy, and the premises needed to be cleaned prior to subsequently being re-tenanted.
While I have not awarded an amount for the methamphetamine testing, I do find the low level of contamination proved, and I have awarded $250.00 for cleaning.
The landlord was not able to explain why it was that the stove was not working. Photographs show the stove to be in a reasonable state of repair. I do not find this claim proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because Arick & Sunanda John Trading As Senorita & Mark Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4853080 — Property damage at 11A Woodvale Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4853080 — Property damage at 11A Woodvale Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed 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

How much is owed 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