What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4867282?

The tribunal order states: Toni-lee Hall must pay Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Di Liu

How much money was awarded in case 4867282?

Cleaning: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Failure To Vacate On Termination: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $620.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Mirror: $73.98 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4867282?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4867282?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10426401-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4867282?

The tribunal order states: Toni-lee Hall must pay Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Di Liu

How much money was awarded in case 4867282?

Cleaning: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Failure To Vacate On Termination: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $620.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Mirror: $73.98 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4867282?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4867282?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10426401-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5C St Olpherts Avenue, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4867282 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4867282 — net $339.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29/03/2024	$620.00	Rent arrears to 29/03/2024
Carpet Cleaning	$140.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$125.00	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: Mirror	$73.98	Replace furnishings: Mirror
Repairs	$460.00	Repairs
Failure to vacate on termination	$500.00	Failure to vacate on termination
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$339.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$339.42

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenancy was terminated on 18 March 2024 by a previous order of the Tribunal. It was confirmed today that the tenant moved out and left the keys on 29 March 2024. She agrees that she owes rent to that date and it is awarded.

The landlord also seeks payment of cleaning and repair costs and exemplary damages because the tenant did not move out on the termination date and did not ensure that no more than the maximum two occupants lived at the premises.

The tenant disagrees with some of the claims. Cleaning and repairs

The landlord agrees that the premises were mostly left reasonably clean and tidy. Rubbish was removed and keys returned.

Photos show that a few areas were missed in the cleaning and two lightbulbs needed replacing. I award the small invoice and the carpet cleaning invoice as a dog had been kept at the house (without permission).

The ingoing inspection checklist records that there was a bathroom mirror at the start of the tenancy, and this was missing at the end. The tenant said there was no mirror supplied and she used her own. The checklist supports the landlord, so I award the estimate of cost to replace the mirror.

The landlord claims some damage that is more than wear and tear happened during this tenancy. The ingoing inspection checklist records existing multiple paint chips, patches, and pinholes in the walls in the lounge and two bedrooms and that these were in “average” condition, and one 10cm x 0.5cm crack in the wall in the lounge. The landlord did not take photos at the start of the tenancy.

The landlord has supplied photos taken after the tenancy ended. These focus on a dented scrape on the wall near the panel heater in the lounge (this looks like a deep furniture scrape), a cracked dent in one bedroom, two approximately 3cm holes through a bedroom wall, and a similar hole in one wardrobe.

The tenant says that the holes were present when the tenancy started and that she doesn’t recall the scrape (which is near where her couch was).

The landlord must prove that damage occurred during this tenancy and is more than wear and tear. The same property manager did the ingoing and outgoing inspections and says that she would not have missed noting holes on the inspection checklist. The landlord accepts that the hole in the wardrobe may have been missed at the ingoing inspection.

My decision is that the scrape and cracked dent and two of the holes probably happened during this tenancy as the inspection checklist is detailed. All other marks are wear and tear, or probably did not happen during this tenancy.

The invoice for repair includes the cost to undercoat and apply two coats of paint to all walls in the lounge, kitchen and two bedrooms. The landlord says the house was last painted 6 or 7 years ago.

I award $460.00 ($400.00+GST) for the estimated cost to patch the damaged areas. This is less than any insurance excess. I do not award a contribution to painting as the condition of the walls at the start of the tenancy indicates this was due as part of normal maintenance. Failing to vacate on the termination date

The landlord applies for exemplary damages (like a fine) as the tenant did not move out on the termination date set by the Tribunal.

A tenant is legally required to vacate premises on the termination of a tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

To fail to do so without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.

The tenant accepts that she did not move out on the termination date because she had not found a new place to live. This is difficult but not a reasonable excuse when there was an opportunity given to avoid the termination of the tenancy (in the previous proceedings) and a 10-day notice period allowed in the termination order. The effect of not moving out is that the landlord had to apply for a bailiff, take time and effort to negotiate with the tenant, and that the preparation of the house for new tenants was delayed.

The interests of the landlord are that it receives possession when legally entitled to as arrangements for contractors and new tenants are made with the termination date in mind.

There is a public interest in the right of a landlord to recover possession of their property promptly and for tenants to understand that resolving the problem of alternative housing must be done elsewhere and not in the tenancy premises. I award exemplary damages of $500.00. Failing to ensure that no more than the maximum occupants lived at the premises

The landlord also seeks exemplary damages for the tenant failing to ensure that the maximum occupants at the house did not exceed the two who were permitted.

This breach was proven at the previous proceedings and was one of the reasons for the termination of the tenancy.

To exceed the number of permitted occupants without reasonable excuse is a breach of section 40(3) RTA 1986 and exemplary damages of up to a maximum of $1,000.00 may apply; s40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A RTA.

I do not award exemplary damages on this occasion as the primary penalty has been that the tenancy was terminated.

The landlord is entitled to the filing fee but does not seek suppression of name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4867282 — net $339.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29/03/2024	$620.00	Rent arrears to 29/03/2024
Carpet Cleaning	$140.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$125.00	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: Mirror	$73.98	Replace furnishings: Mirror
Repairs	$460.00	Repairs
Failure to vacate on termination	$500.00	Failure to vacate on termination
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$339.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$339.42

Order

Toni-lee Hall must pay Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Di Liu $339.42 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (5082818-009) to Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Di Liu immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy was terminated on 18 March 2024 by a previous order of the Tribunal. It was confirmed today that the tenant moved out and left the keys on 29 March 2024. She agrees that she owes rent to that date and it is awarded.
The landlord also seeks payment of cleaning and repair costs and exemplary damages because the tenant did not move out on the termination date and did not ensure that no more than the maximum two occupants lived at the premises.
The tenant disagrees with some of the claims. Cleaning and repairs
The landlord agrees that the premises were mostly left reasonably clean and tidy. Rubbish was removed and keys returned.
Photos show that a few areas were missed in the cleaning and two lightbulbs needed replacing. I award the small invoice and the carpet cleaning invoice as a dog had been kept at the house (without permission).
The ingoing inspection checklist records that there was a bathroom mirror at the start of the tenancy, and this was missing at the end. The tenant said there was no mirror supplied and she used her own. The checklist supports the landlord, so I award the estimate of cost to replace the mirror.
The landlord claims some damage that is more than wear and tear happened during this tenancy. The ingoing inspection checklist records existing multiple paint chips, patches, and pinholes in the walls in the lounge and two bedrooms and that these were in “average” condition, and one 10cm x 0.5cm crack in the wall in the lounge. The landlord did not take photos at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord has supplied photos taken after the tenancy ended. These focus on a dented scrape on the wall near the panel heater in the lounge (this looks like a deep furniture scrape), a cracked dent in one bedroom, two approximately 3cm holes through a bedroom wall, and a similar hole in one wardrobe.
The tenant says that the holes were present when the tenancy started and that she doesn’t recall the scrape (which is near where her couch was).
The landlord must prove that damage occurred during this tenancy and is more than wear and tear. The same property manager did the ingoing and outgoing inspections and says that she would not have missed noting holes on the inspection checklist. The landlord accepts that the hole in the wardrobe may have been missed at the ingoing inspection.
My decision is that the scrape and cracked dent and two of the holes probably happened during this tenancy as the inspection checklist is detailed. All other marks are wear and tear, or probably did not happen during this tenancy.
The invoice for repair includes the cost to undercoat and apply two coats of paint to all walls in the lounge, kitchen and two bedrooms. The landlord says the house was last painted 6 or 7 years ago.
I award $460.00 ($400.00+GST) for the estimated cost to patch the damaged areas. This is less than any insurance excess. I do not award a contribution to painting as the condition of the walls at the start of the tenancy indicates this was due as part of normal maintenance. Failing to vacate on the termination date
The landlord applies for exemplary damages (like a fine) as the tenant did not move out on the termination date set by the Tribunal.
A tenant is legally required to vacate premises on the termination of a tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
To fail to do so without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The tenant accepts that she did not move out on the termination date because she had not found a new place to live. This is difficult but not a reasonable excuse when there was an opportunity given to avoid the termination of the tenancy (in the previous proceedings) and a 10-day notice period allowed in the termination order. The effect of not moving out is that the landlord had to apply for a bailiff, take time and effort to negotiate with the tenant, and that the preparation of the house for new tenants was delayed.
The interests of the landlord are that it receives possession when legally entitled to as arrangements for contractors and new tenants are made with the termination date in mind.
There is a public interest in the right of a landlord to recover possession of their property promptly and for tenants to understand that resolving the problem of alternative housing must be done elsewhere and not in the tenancy premises. I award exemplary damages of $500.00. Failing to ensure that no more than the maximum occupants lived at the premises
The landlord also seeks exemplary damages for the tenant failing to ensure that the maximum occupants at the house did not exceed the two who were permitted.
This breach was proven at the previous proceedings and was one of the reasons for the termination of the tenancy.
To exceed the number of permitted occupants without reasonable excuse is a breach of section 40(3) RTA 1986 and exemplary damages of up to a maximum of $1,000.00 may apply; s40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I do not award exemplary damages on this occasion as the primary penalty has been that the tenancy was terminated.
The landlord is entitled to the filing fee but does not seek suppression of name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4867282 — Rent arrears at 5C St Olpherts Avenue, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4867282 — Rent arrears at 5C St Olpherts Avenue, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions