What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4903734?

The tribunal order states: Dylan Tataurangi must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Chandar

How much money was awarded in case 4903734?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $928.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,049.77 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4903734?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4903734?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10750479-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4903734?

The tribunal order states: Dylan Tataurangi must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Chandar

How much money was awarded in case 4903734?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $928.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,049.77 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4903734?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4903734?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10750479-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 308, 17 Putney Way, Manukau, Auckland 2104, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4903734 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4903734 — net $3,048.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21 April 2024	$928.57	Rent arrears to 21 April 2024
Water rates and gas	$1,049.77	Water rates and gas
Repairs to front door	$600.00	Repairs to front door
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$450.00	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,048.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,048.78

Order

Dylan Tataurangi must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Chandar Deo Singh And Lila Wati $3,048.78 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has 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, water rates and gas?

The tenancy ended on 21 April 2024 by order of the Tribunal. The landlord provided rent records, and water and gas invoices from the Body Corporate which prove the amount owing. Rent arrears totalled $928.57 at the end of the tenancy. Outstanding water rates and gas totalled $1,049.77.

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 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 tenancy began on 27 October 2023. The landlord provided the Tribunal with photographs of the property at the beginning of the tenancy, which confirm it was handed to the tenant in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord also provided the Tribunal with photographs of the property at the end of the tenancy. These photographs show personal belongings and rubbish left by the tenant. The property was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The landlord cleaned the property and removed the tenant’s personal belongings themselves. An invoice for their labour was submitted to the Tribunal. The landlord sought $350.00 for cleaning and $250.00 for rubbish removal. No detail was provided in the invoice about the amount of time spent cleaning the property or the landlord’s hourly rate. The property was fully furnished at the beginning of the tenancy and the personal belongings left by the tenant were mostly small items (clothes, knick knacks etc). The landlord was not required to remove large items of furniture or hire a skip bin. Although the property was generally messy, it was not heavily soiled. I consider that it would have taken the landlord no longer than 5 hours to remove the rubbish and clean the property. I have reduced the amount awarded for cleaning and rubbish removal from $600.00 to $400.00, which equates to a generous hourly rate of $80.00.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a. Bedside table.
The landlord sought $150.00 in compensation for the cost to replace the bedside table. They advised the Tribunal that the bedside table has not been replaced to date and the property has been re-tenanted. The landlord estimated the bedside table to be approximately 4 – 5 years old. They did not provide any evidence of the proposed bedside table they intended to purchase to replace the cost. The claim for compensation of $150.00 is dismissed.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Broken front door.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord fixed the front door themselves and submitted an invoice for $600.00. They explained that the front door needs to meet certain fire safety standards, as the property is a unit in an apartment block. The mechanism attached to the door, which ensures that it always self-closes, was broken by the tenant. The cost to replace this was high and more time was spent fixing the door than would ordinarily be the case.
The amount ordered to repair the front door is 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 Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Chandar Deo Singh And Lila Wati has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4903734 — net $3,048.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21 April 2024	$928.57	Rent arrears to 21 April 2024
Water rates and gas	$1,049.77	Water rates and gas
Repairs to front door	$600.00	Repairs to front door
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$450.00	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,048.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,048.78

Order

Dylan Tataurangi must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Chandar Deo Singh And Lila Wati $3,048.78 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has 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, water rates and gas?

The tenancy ended on 21 April 2024 by order of the Tribunal. The landlord provided rent records, and water and gas invoices from the Body Corporate which prove the amount owing. Rent arrears totalled $928.57 at the end of the tenancy. Outstanding water rates and gas totalled $1,049.77.

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 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 tenancy began on 27 October 2023. The landlord provided the Tribunal with photographs of the property at the beginning of the tenancy, which confirm it was handed to the tenant in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord also provided the Tribunal with photographs of the property at the end of the tenancy. These photographs show personal belongings and rubbish left by the tenant. The property was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The landlord cleaned the property and removed the tenant’s personal belongings themselves. An invoice for their labour was submitted to the Tribunal. The landlord sought $350.00 for cleaning and $250.00 for rubbish removal. No detail was provided in the invoice about the amount of time spent cleaning the property or the landlord’s hourly rate. The property was fully furnished at the beginning of the tenancy and the personal belongings left by the tenant were mostly small items (clothes, knick knacks etc). The landlord was not required to remove large items of furniture or hire a skip bin. Although the property was generally messy, it was not heavily soiled. I consider that it would have taken the landlord no longer than 5 hours to remove the rubbish and clean the property. I have reduced the amount awarded for cleaning and rubbish removal from $600.00 to $400.00, which equates to a generous hourly rate of $80.00.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a. Bedside table.
The landlord sought $150.00 in compensation for the cost to replace the bedside table. They advised the Tribunal that the bedside table has not been replaced to date and the property has been re-tenanted. The landlord estimated the bedside table to be approximately 4 – 5 years old. They did not provide any evidence of the proposed bedside table they intended to purchase to replace the cost. The claim for compensation of $150.00 is dismissed.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Broken front door.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord fixed the front door themselves and submitted an invoice for $600.00. They explained that the front door needs to meet certain fire safety standards, as the property is a unit in an apartment block. The mechanism attached to the door, which ensures that it always self-closes, was broken by the tenant. The cost to replace this was high and more time was spent fixing the door than would ordinarily be the case.
The amount ordered to repair the front door is 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 Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Chandar Deo Singh And Lila Wati has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4903734 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 308, 17 Putney Way, Manukau, Auckland 2104,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4903734 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 308, 17 Putney Way, Manukau, Auckland 2104,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent, water rates and gas?

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 for rent, water rates and gas?

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