What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4922933?

The tribunal order states: Cherie Pakura to pay Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4922933?

Rent Arrears: $895.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4922933?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4922933?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10657364-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4922933?

The tribunal order states: Cherie Pakura to pay Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4922933?

Rent Arrears: $895.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4922933?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4922933?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10657364-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 708, 1 Hobson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4922933 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4922933 — net $895.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11/06/2024	$895.00	Rent arrears to 11/06/2024
Net award	$895.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$895.00

Order

Cherie Pakura to pay Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For Padraig Delaney Micheal Springett $895.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $895.00 (5156183-008) to Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For Padraig Delaney Micheal Springett immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,005.00 (5156183-008) to Cherie Pakura immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claimed that the landlord had failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard by not fixing broken window seals for two years. The tenant further claimed that the landlord entered the premises without proper 4922933, 49365542 notice to have the window seal fixed. The tenant said that as a result, she felt so unsafe that she had to move out incurring $1,900.00 for purchasing a new fridge/freezer and a washing machine for the new accommodation. The tenant sought compensation for the mental distress she suffered.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for carpet cleaning and toilet roll holder, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
I deal with the tenant’s application first.

Has the landlord failed to maintain or entered without notice?

Under section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
In relation to entry into the premises, a landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA
The tenant claimed that she told the landlord about a window seal that had been damaged to the extent that it was allowing draughts in. The tenant said she had never given the landlord any written notice for it to be fixed.
The tenant said that her friend noticed that the seal had been fixed one day. The tenant then enquired with the landlord as to how it was fixed without her being notified of anyone entering inside.
The property manager and the owner both denied knowing about the seal getting fixed. They had no record of it getting repaired. The property manager enquired with the building manager and the building manager said that there was nothing shown on CCTV to prove that anyone had been in to fix the seal.
The tenant showed the before and after photos of the window seal in question. The friend came as a witness and highlighted the part that was damaged. Despite highlighting the photo and looking at the photos from the tenant’s phone, I could not see if the seal was even damaged in the “before” photo. I could not tell whether it had been repaired at all. 4922933, 49365543
I find that the tenant has not proven this claim to the required standard. There was no reliable evidence that the window seal ever required fixing or that it was ever fixed.
I dismiss the claims regarding the landlord’s failure to maintain and unlawful entry. As I have dismissed these claims, the associated compensation claims for mental stress and purchase of appliances are also dismissed. The landlord’s cross-application
Having dealt with the tenant’s application, now I consider the landlord’s claim for rent arrears.
The tenancy ended on 11 th June 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The rent owing was $895.00 to the end of tenancy.
Although the tenant disputed that there was anything owing as she was in credit with rent as of 23 rd May 2024, there was no evidence of any payments that she had made that had been missed in the landlord’s rent summary.
I find that the landlord has proven the rent amount owing at the end of the tenancy. I order the tenant to pay the landlord the rent arrears of $895.00. Toilet roll holder
The toilet roll holder was missing at the end of the tenancy.
However, the tenant provided evidence of purchasing a toilet roll holder and leaving it at the premises after the tenancy has ended.
As the toilet has provided a new roll holder as a replacement, I do not award any compensation for the landlord. Carpet cleaning
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord acknowledged that the premises was left clean and tidy at the end but said that the carpet was left with stains and needed to be cleaned professionally.
Having compared the ingoing inspection report and the outgoing inspection report, I find that the carpet stains were pre-existing.
I do not find that the landlord has proven that the carpet required professional cleaning as a result of the tenant. 4922933, 49365544
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee reimbursement
At neither party has wholly or substantially succeeded with their applications, I do not order for the filing fee to be reimbursed by any party. Name suppression
As no party has requested for name suppression, no suppression orders apply to the publication of this order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4922933 — net $895.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11/06/2024	$895.00	Rent arrears to 11/06/2024
Net award	$895.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$895.00

Order

Cherie Pakura to pay Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For Padraig Delaney Micheal Springett $895.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $895.00 (5156183-008) to Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For Padraig Delaney Micheal Springett immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,005.00 (5156183-008) to Cherie Pakura immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claimed that the landlord had failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard by not fixing broken window seals for two years. The tenant further claimed that the landlord entered the premises without proper 4922933, 49365542 notice to have the window seal fixed. The tenant said that as a result, she felt so unsafe that she had to move out incurring $1,900.00 for purchasing a new fridge/freezer and a washing machine for the new accommodation. The tenant sought compensation for the mental distress she suffered.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for carpet cleaning and toilet roll holder, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
I deal with the tenant’s application first.

Has the landlord failed to maintain or entered without notice?

Under section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
In relation to entry into the premises, a landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA
The tenant claimed that she told the landlord about a window seal that had been damaged to the extent that it was allowing draughts in. The tenant said she had never given the landlord any written notice for it to be fixed.
The tenant said that her friend noticed that the seal had been fixed one day. The tenant then enquired with the landlord as to how it was fixed without her being notified of anyone entering inside.
The property manager and the owner both denied knowing about the seal getting fixed. They had no record of it getting repaired. The property manager enquired with the building manager and the building manager said that there was nothing shown on CCTV to prove that anyone had been in to fix the seal.
The tenant showed the before and after photos of the window seal in question. The friend came as a witness and highlighted the part that was damaged. Despite highlighting the photo and looking at the photos from the tenant’s phone, I could not see if the seal was even damaged in the “before” photo. I could not tell whether it had been repaired at all. 4922933, 49365543
I find that the tenant has not proven this claim to the required standard. There was no reliable evidence that the window seal ever required fixing or that it was ever fixed.
I dismiss the claims regarding the landlord’s failure to maintain and unlawful entry. As I have dismissed these claims, the associated compensation claims for mental stress and purchase of appliances are also dismissed. The landlord’s cross-application
Having dealt with the tenant’s application, now I consider the landlord’s claim for rent arrears.
The tenancy ended on 11 th June 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The rent owing was $895.00 to the end of tenancy.
Although the tenant disputed that there was anything owing as she was in credit with rent as of 23 rd May 2024, there was no evidence of any payments that she had made that had been missed in the landlord’s rent summary.
I find that the landlord has proven the rent amount owing at the end of the tenancy. I order the tenant to pay the landlord the rent arrears of $895.00. Toilet roll holder
The toilet roll holder was missing at the end of the tenancy.
However, the tenant provided evidence of purchasing a toilet roll holder and leaving it at the premises after the tenancy has ended.
As the toilet has provided a new roll holder as a replacement, I do not award any compensation for the landlord. Carpet cleaning
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord acknowledged that the premises was left clean and tidy at the end but said that the carpet was left with stains and needed to be cleaned professionally.
Having compared the ingoing inspection report and the outgoing inspection report, I find that the carpet stains were pre-existing.
I do not find that the landlord has proven that the carpet required professional cleaning as a result of the tenant. 4922933, 49365544
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee reimbursement
At neither party has wholly or substantially succeeded with their applications, I do not order for the filing fee to be reimbursed by any party. Name suppression
As no party has requested for name suppression, no suppression orders apply to the publication of this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4922933 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 708, 1 Hobson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4922933 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 708, 1 Hobson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to maintain or entered without notice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to maintain or entered without notice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions