What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4894300?

The tribunal order states: Daniel James Taia to pay Braziers Limited and David & Shadhna Miller $806.84

How much money was awarded in case 4894300?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $786.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4894300?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4894300?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10607604-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4894300?

The tribunal order states: Daniel James Taia to pay Braziers Limited and David & Shadhna Miller $806.84

How much money was awarded in case 4894300?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $786.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4894300?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4894300?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10607604-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Portchester Street, Aranui, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4894300 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4894300 — net $806.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 June 2024	$786.40	Rent arrears to 11 June 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$806.84
Bond	$1,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$806.84

Daniel James Taia to pay Braziers Limited and David & Shadhna Miller $806.84 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,480.00 (3364395-016) immediately apportioned as follows: Braziers Limited as agent for David & Shadhna Miller: $806.84 Daniel James Taia: $673.16

The landlords other claims dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlords applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlords gave notice to the tenant, Mr Taia, to vacate the property o 19 May 2024 but Mr Taia did not vacate until 11 June 2024. Mr Taia is liable for rent up until the day he moved out (11 June).

The amount of rent owing has been established by the production of rent records.

Did Mr Taia comply with his obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all keys and security devices for the premises: section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The landlords claim the cost to change the locks and keys. Ms Roundhill, who represented the landlords, said that they are not sure if Mr Taia returned all keys and they changed the locks because they were concerned that he may have retained a key(s).

The tenancy commenced on 29 August 2019 and Mr Taia said that he was given two keys for the premises at the start of the tenancy and he returned two keys at the end. Braziers were not managing the tenancy when it commenced and therefore could not dispute Mr Taia’s evidence.

The claim for the cost to replace the locks and keys is therefore dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.

The landlord claims that the cost to repair the following damage which they say occurred during the tenancy: • Hole in the hall wall • Damage to the dining room wall • Damage to the back door panel

Mr Taia said that the damage to the dining room wall happened when his dog ran into the wall. He denies causing the damage to the hall wall and back door saying that the damage was there at the start of the tenancy.

I dismiss the claim for damage to the dining room wall. On the evidence before me I find that Mr Taia has established that damage was more likely than not caused accidentally rather than by his careless or intentional actions (or the careless or intentional actions of others at the premises with his permission).

The claim for damage to the hall wall and back door are dismissed because I am not satisfied that the landlords have established that the damage occurred during the tenancy. There was no pre tenancy inspection report completed and signed by both parties and as mentioned Braziers took over management of the tenancy sometime after it commenced. Ms Roundhill could therefore not give evidence as to the condition of the wall and door when the tenancy commenced. Tribunal application fee

The landlords have been partially successful in their claims, and I consider this an appropriate case to award them payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4894300 — net $806.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 June 2024	$786.40	Rent arrears to 11 June 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$806.84
Bond	$1,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$806.84

Order

Daniel James Taia to pay Braziers Limited and David & Shadhna Miller $806.84 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,480.00 (3364395-016) immediately apportioned as follows: Braziers Limited as agent for David & Shadhna Miller: $806.84 Daniel James Taia: $673.16
The landlords other claims dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlords applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlords gave notice to the tenant, Mr Taia, to vacate the property o 19 May 2024 but Mr Taia did not vacate until 11 June 2024. Mr Taia is liable for rent up until the day he moved out (11 June).
The amount of rent owing has been established by the production of rent records.

Did Mr Taia comply with his obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all keys and security devices for the premises: section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The landlords claim the cost to change the locks and keys. Ms Roundhill, who represented the landlords, said that they are not sure if Mr Taia returned all keys and they changed the locks because they were concerned that he may have retained a key(s).
The tenancy commenced on 29 August 2019 and Mr Taia said that he was given two keys for the premises at the start of the tenancy and he returned two keys at the end. Braziers were not managing the tenancy when it commenced and therefore could not dispute Mr Taia’s evidence.
The claim for the cost to replace the locks and keys is therefore dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
The landlord claims that the cost to repair the following damage which they say occurred during the tenancy: • Hole in the hall wall • Damage to the dining room wall • Damage to the back door panel
Mr Taia said that the damage to the dining room wall happened when his dog ran into the wall. He denies causing the damage to the hall wall and back door saying that the damage was there at the start of the tenancy.
I dismiss the claim for damage to the dining room wall. On the evidence before me I find that Mr Taia has established that damage was more likely than not caused accidentally rather than by his careless or intentional actions (or the careless or intentional actions of others at the premises with his permission).
The claim for damage to the hall wall and back door are dismissed because I am not satisfied that the landlords have established that the damage occurred during the tenancy. There was no pre tenancy inspection report completed and signed by both parties and as mentioned Braziers took over management of the tenancy sometime after it commenced. Ms Roundhill could therefore not give evidence as to the condition of the wall and door when the tenancy commenced. Tribunal application fee
The landlords have been partially successful in their claims, and I consider this an appropriate case to award them payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4894300 — Rent arrears at 6 Portchester Street, Aranui, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4894300 — Rent arrears at 6 Portchester Street, Aranui, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did Mr Taia comply with his 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 for rent?

Did Mr Taia comply with his 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