What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4853782?

The tribunal order states: Nganeko Ngeru must pay Wade Papuni and Hokipera Ruakere Papuni

How much money was awarded in case 4853782?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4853782?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4853782?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10671561-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4853782?

The tribunal order states: Nganeko Ngeru must pay Wade Papuni and Hokipera Ruakere Papuni

How much money was awarded in case 4853782?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4853782?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4853782?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10671561-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 Raleigh Street, Vogeltown, New Plymouth 4310 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4853782 — Rent arrears

Order

Nganeko Ngeru must pay Wade Papuni and Hokipera Ruakere Papuni $1,094.60 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claim for a replacement hose, painting to the lounge and bedroom and replacement of curtains is dismissed.
The landlord’s application or an order to dispose of goods is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The orders made in this case
It is important to note that there are two earlier Tribunal orders made in respect of this tenancy.
An order for rent arrears was made by mediation on 1 February 2024 (4769837) (“the mediator’s order”). A later order was made by me on 15 March 2024 (4802357) for additional arrears. The order of 15 March 2024 incorporated the mediator’s order so to that date all of the arrears (including those in the mediator’s order) were contained in the one order dated 15 March 2024.
I have now incorporated my order of 15 March 2024 into this order today.
This means that the landlord should not seek to enforce or collect on either of the earlier orders.
In other words, the tenant’s debt is now contained within this single order.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 24 April 2024. The landlord provided rent records.
As explained at the hearing, I cannot go behind or adjust any earlier orders of the Tribunal set out above.
This means that rent arrears can only be considered from after the last order was made (so, from and including 15 March 2024).
Records show that since the order of 15 March 2024 the tenant has paid $430 five times (this totals $2,150). The period from 15 March 2024 to 24 April 2024 is 5 weeks and 6 days at $600 per week.
This would have left the tenant in arrears of $1,364.29 but she has also released the bond to the landlord of $2,400 towards this.
The payment of the bond of $2400 clears the arrears from 15 March to 24 April and leaves the balance (a credit) to go the landlord to go towards other sums/the existing debt.
To make the position clear to the parties and to consolidate all of the orders and to set out in one place the extent of the debt owed I have included in my order above the outstanding rent sum that would have been owed (in the absence of the payment of the bond) from 15 March 2024 to 24 April 2024. I have then given full credit in my order for the bond which has been paid to the landlord already.
As stated above, this means that the landlord should not seek to enforce or collect on either of the earlier orders. The tenant’s debt is now contained only within this order.

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 and remove all rubbish and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord seeks $39.99 for carpet cleaning. The landlord hired a Rug Doctor. She provided evidence of the condition of the carpet in one area. I find this area was not left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord had a receipt to prove her loss. I am satisfied that the sum claimed is reasonable. The sum ordered is proven.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish and items. The landlord does not seek an order for the removal of goods (as set out in the application) as they have already been disposed of, so this claim is dismissed. The landlord does claim compensation for the removal costs. I am satisfied that the tenant has had sufficient notice of this claim as a receipt has been filed and the amount claimed is stated on that application, albeit in a place usually used for stating the value of goods left rather than the actual costs of disposal.
The landlord provided evidence of the items disposed of and evidence of the loss claimed of $229.44. This is a reasonable sum considering the items left at the premises. The sum ordered is proven.
The landlord says that a garden hose was missing but there was insufficient evidence to support this was a chattel at the premises and, in the absence of an invoice or receipt showing replacement, I am not satisfied that the hose will be replaced.
The landlord also says that a heat pump remote is missing and seeks the replacement cost of $50. The landlord says that she managed the property and that it was rented after the passing of her relative who used to live there. She says that the heat pump remote was there at the start of the tenancy. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that a heat pump remote was included in this tenancy. The landlord’s oral evidence is supported by a heat pump remote holder which is attached to the wall and there is a heat pump. Photographs of these items were provided.
While the landlord has not provided an invoice to support her claim for loss suffered I am satisfied that this is an item that will need to be replaced and the amount sought of $50 is reasonable and is more likely than not to reflect the landlord’s loss. The sum ordered is proven.

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 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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan are relevant when making such an assessment.
The landlord claimed for painting the lounge and bedroom. I am not satisfied that the landlord has sufficiently proven that there was damage that the tenant is responsible for or that, even if proven, the sums claimed is reasonable. This claim is therefore dismissed.
The landlord claimed for the replacement of three curtains for $150. The landlord says that the curtains were dirty at the end of the tenancy and provided limited photographs of these. She says that the curtains have not been replaced but that she has washed them and rehung them for now. There was no evidence as to the age of the curtains and no invoice to support the sum claimed. I am not satisfied that the landlord has adequately proven that the curtains required replacing, or that they will be replaced, or her loss. This part of the claim is therefore dismissed.
I am satisfied that three hollow core doors were damaged with holes and some poor patching of those holes during the course of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord provided an independent invoice to support the sum claimed of $520 as well as supporting photographs and an ingoing property inspection report. The tenant attempted repairs on some doors but I am satisfied that the repair was not adequate. The tenant says that the doors were recently painted just before her Nana moved into the property May 2022. This means that the doors were recently painted when the tenancy started. Save for the holes and patches the paintwork on the doors looks to be in good overall condition. The property inspection also report records the condition as being acceptable. The amounts ordered are proved.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4853782 — Rent arrears at 14 Raleigh Street, Vogeltown, New Plymouth 4310

Tenancy Tribunal case 4853782 — Rent arrears at 14 Raleigh Street, Vogeltown, New Plymouth 4310

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?