What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4892566?

The tribunal order states: Pepe Elizabeth Faimalo and Dorothy Peresia Makerita Brown must pay Kings

How much money was awarded in case 4892566?

Cleaning: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $35.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,502.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Heat Pump Remote: $174.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $997.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4892566?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4892566?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10734441-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4892566?

The tribunal order states: Pepe Elizabeth Faimalo and Dorothy Peresia Makerita Brown must pay Kings

How much money was awarded in case 4892566?

Cleaning: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $35.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,502.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Heat Pump Remote: $174.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $997.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4892566?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4892566?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10734441-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Rangataua Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4892566 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

7 Rangataua Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4892566 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4892566 — net $8,401.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 April 2024	$8,502.00	Rent arrears to 5 April 2024
Water rates	$997.30	21. This Order replaces the Order dated 6 August 2024 which contained an error in calculating the water rates arrears.
Lock/key replacement	$250.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$287.50	Cleaning
Oven/stove cleaning	$115.00	Oven/stove cleaning
Carpet Cleaning: Hob	$25.00	Carpet Cleaning: Hob
Cleaning: Rangehood	$35.00	Cleaning: Rangehood
Replace curtains	$75.00	Replace curtains
Replace heat pump remote	$174.00	Replace heat pump remote
Rubbish removal: Gym equipment	$250.00	Rubbish removal: Gym equipment
Lawns and Garden work	$230.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,401.12
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,401.12

Claims and awards for application 4892566 — net $8,401.12 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 5 April 2024

Amount: $8,502.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 5 April 2024

Water rates

Amount: $997.30
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: 21. This Order replaces the Order dated 6 August 2024 which contained an error in calculating the water rates arrears.

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Cleaning

Amount: $287.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Oven/stove cleaning

Amount: $115.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Oven/stove cleaning

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

Pepe Elizabeth Faimalo and Dorothy Peresia Makerita Brown must pay Kings Property Management Limited as Agent for Litearmi Trust $8,401.12 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has been paid the bond.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy was ended for abandonment on 5 April 2024 by an Order of the Tribunal made on that date (application 4843641).
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The position with water rates is a little more complicated. The property has 2 dwellings serviced by one water supply. There is a check meter to measure water usage by 7B.
The water rates invoice for the period of the tenancy give a very high charge of $661.73 for the period 16.11.23 to 20.12.23, leading me to question whether there might have been a leak affecting water consumption. The property manager’s formal evidence is that no leak has been discovered and no concerns about a leak have been raised by Watercare or by the tenants. I note that the Watercare invoice prior to that actual reading were estimates. There is no evidential basis for me to find that the Watercare charges are impacted by leak(s).
The landlord has provided a breakdown of water charges. However, the total calculated as the charges payable by 7 and 7B for the period of the tenancy are higher than the total Watercare charges for that period. To calculate what is owed by these tenants, I have taken the total Watercare charges for the period from 18.9.23 to 22.4.24 ($1,403.82) which will reflect the use recorded by the main meter. From that I have deducted the charges attributable for the 86 units used, as recorded by the 7B check meter, during the period of this tenancy, in terms of the landlord’s breakdown ($406.52).

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys or the heat pump remote.
The amounts claimed are evidence by an invoice from EdgePro Limited. The property manager Mr Gao is director of the landlord and EdgePro Limited. Particularly given the lack of separation between the landlord and the contractor, it is necessary to ensure that the charges claimed are reasonable.
The evidence provided from photos taken after the tenants had vacated satisfy me that the charges for cleaning the premises and tidying the exterior are reasonable.
The charges for removing some gym equipment are significant and not itemised, though the property manager has explained the process and time involved. In my view those charges are excessive and a lesser amount is awarded.
In terms of the lock replacement there is no evidence of the cost of replacement locks or of the time spent on the work or at what hourly rate.
In the absence of such evidence, given the landlord’s vested interest in the charges made, the award must necessarily be conservative and a reduced sum is awarded.
I accept the property manager’s evidence that the curtains in bedroom 3 had been removed at the end of the tenancy and needed to be replaced.
The costs of replacement curtains are not supported by evidence of replacement cost (I understand the curtains were replaced from stock on hand) or of the age of the curtained, which would have been at least 5 years.
In those circumstances, I do not find the extent of the loss proved but a small award of compensation is made to recognise the likelihood that the curtains had some residual value and ought not to have been removed by the tenants.
Because Kings Property Management Limited as Agent for Litearmi Trust has largely succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
This Order replaces the Order dated 6 August 2024 which contained an error in calculating the water rates arrears.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4892566 — net $8,401.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 April 2024	$8,502.00	Rent arrears to 5 April 2024
Water rates	$997.30	21. This Order replaces the Order dated 6 August 2024 which contained an error in calculating the water rates arrears.
Lock/key replacement	$250.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$287.50	Cleaning
Oven/stove cleaning	$115.00	Oven/stove cleaning
Carpet Cleaning: Hob	$25.00	Carpet Cleaning: Hob
Cleaning: Rangehood	$35.00	Cleaning: Rangehood
Replace curtains	$75.00	Replace curtains
Replace heat pump remote	$174.00	Replace heat pump remote
Rubbish removal: Gym equipment	$250.00	Rubbish removal: Gym equipment
Lawns and Garden work	$230.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,401.12
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,401.12

Claims and awards for application 4892566 — net $8,401.12 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 5 April 2024

Amount: $8,502.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 5 April 2024

Water rates

Amount: $997.30
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: 21. This Order replaces the Order dated 6 August 2024 which contained an error in calculating the water rates arrears.

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Cleaning

Amount: $287.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Oven/stove cleaning

Amount: $115.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Oven/stove cleaning

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

Pepe Elizabeth Faimalo and Dorothy Peresia Makerita Brown must pay Kings Property Management Limited as Agent for Litearmi Trust $8,401.12 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has been paid the bond.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy was ended for abandonment on 5 April 2024 by an Order of the Tribunal made on that date (application 4843641).
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The position with water rates is a little more complicated. The property has 2 dwellings serviced by one water supply. There is a check meter to measure water usage by 7B.
The water rates invoice for the period of the tenancy give a very high charge of $661.73 for the period 16.11.23 to 20.12.23, leading me to question whether there might have been a leak affecting water consumption. The property manager’s formal evidence is that no leak has been discovered and no concerns about a leak have been raised by Watercare or by the tenants. I note that the Watercare invoice prior to that actual reading were estimates. There is no evidential basis for me to find that the Watercare charges are impacted by leak(s).
The landlord has provided a breakdown of water charges. However, the total calculated as the charges payable by 7 and 7B for the period of the tenancy are higher than the total Watercare charges for that period. To calculate what is owed by these tenants, I have taken the total Watercare charges for the period from 18.9.23 to 22.4.24 ($1,403.82) which will reflect the use recorded by the main meter. From that I have deducted the charges attributable for the 86 units used, as recorded by the 7B check meter, during the period of this tenancy, in terms of the landlord’s breakdown ($406.52).

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys or the heat pump remote.
The amounts claimed are evidence by an invoice from EdgePro Limited. The property manager Mr Gao is director of the landlord and EdgePro Limited. Particularly given the lack of separation between the landlord and the contractor, it is necessary to ensure that the charges claimed are reasonable.
The evidence provided from photos taken after the tenants had vacated satisfy me that the charges for cleaning the premises and tidying the exterior are reasonable.
The charges for removing some gym equipment are significant and not itemised, though the property manager has explained the process and time involved. In my view those charges are excessive and a lesser amount is awarded.
In terms of the lock replacement there is no evidence of the cost of replacement locks or of the time spent on the work or at what hourly rate.
In the absence of such evidence, given the landlord’s vested interest in the charges made, the award must necessarily be conservative and a reduced sum is awarded.
I accept the property manager’s evidence that the curtains in bedroom 3 had been removed at the end of the tenancy and needed to be replaced.
The costs of replacement curtains are not supported by evidence of replacement cost (I understand the curtains were replaced from stock on hand) or of the age of the curtained, which would have been at least 5 years.
In those circumstances, I do not find the extent of the loss proved but a small award of compensation is made to recognise the likelihood that the curtains had some residual value and ought not to have been removed by the tenants.
Because Kings Property Management Limited as Agent for Litearmi Trust has largely succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
This Order replaces the Order dated 6 August 2024 which contained an error in calculating the water rates arrears.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4892566 — Rent arrears at 7 Rangataua Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4892566 — Rent arrears at 7 Rangataua Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions