What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4925613?

The tribunal order states: Bingbing Li Dobson and Nicholas Graham Dobson must pay Auckland Property

How much money was awarded in case 4925613?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4925613?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4925613?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10762421-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4925613?

The tribunal order states: Bingbing Li Dobson and Nicholas Graham Dobson must pay Auckland Property

How much money was awarded in case 4925613?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4925613?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4925613?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10762421-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

46 Nihill Crescent, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4925613 — Rent arrears

Order

Bingbing Li Dobson and Nicholas Graham Dobson must pay Auckland Property Management Solutions Limited As Agent For Jinyu Li $10,620.22 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $6,800.00 (6051100-003) to Auckland Property Management Solutions Limited As Agent For Jinyu Li immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
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 and water rates?

The tenancy began on 23 April 2021 and was re-signed for a two year fixed term on 29 May 2023 to end on 30 May 2025.
Early in 2024 the tenants’ circumstances changed and they wanted to end the tenancy. On 12 March 2024 they sent an email to the landlord saying they would be leaving the property. They then returned the keys (all except one) to the landlord on 5 April 2024, and paid no more rent after 11 April 2024.
The landlord’s view is that a tenant cannot leave a fixed-term tenancy. Nonetheless the landlord started advertising for a new tenant on 18 March 2024 across the usual platforms. The landlord sought rent of $1,800.00 per week, up from the $1,750.00 per week that the tenants had been paying. In May 2024 the landlord was offered $1,600.00 per week by one prospective tenant, and then $1,500.00 per week by another prospective tenant. The landlord declined both offers.
The landlord is seeking rent arrears from 12 April 2024 until 16 September 2024, an amount they calculate to be $44,300.00.
The landlord eventually accepted an offer of $1,600.00 per week from another tenant who is due to move in to the property in September 2024.
The usual laws of contract apply to tenancy agreements: One party cannot unilaterally cancel a fixed-term Tenancy Agreement.
Section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) requires a party to take all reasonable steps to mitigate damage or loss when the other party breaches the agreement. This approach has been confirmed in the case of Huang v Ashworth, [2024] NZDC 15726.
The landlord has acted to mitigate loss by advertising for a new tenant within one week of the tenants giving notice to end their tenancy. The tenants claim that the landlord could have, and should have taken the earlier offers from prospective tenants, which they say the landlord declined because he was hoping for a higher rent.
The question for me to answer is whether the landlord has taken “all reasonable steps” to mitigate the loss.
The landlord did not provide any information about the tenant applications in May 2024 being unsuitable. The information that the tenants gave was that the landlord declined the applications based on price. This was not contested by the landlord, and I draw the conclusion that it is an accurate conclusion. If the landlord has accepted either of these applications the loss would have been reduced by up to $1,600.00 per week, or $1,500.00 per week from the beginning of that tenancy up until the time that the next tenancy is due to begin on 16 September 2024. That amounts to between $18,000.00 (12 weeks x $1,500.00 per week) and $25,600.00 (16 weeks x $1,600.00 per week). An application could then have been made to the Tribunal for the tenant to top up the rent to the $1,750.00 per week which is what they had been paying.
My view is that this would be a reasonable step for a professional property manager to take. As indicated above, I conclude the landlord did not take this step because he was acting to maximise the financial return for his client, which he has a responsibility to do; but this is not an unfettered responsibility.
In the circumstances, which include the tenants signing a two year fixed term agreement which had already run for almost one whole year, the tenants having paid rent on time during the three year tenancy, the tenants giving the landlord one month’s notice of vacating the premises, the landlord acting quickly to re- tenant the premises but receiving only two applications after two months which were then rejected and the landlord finally accepting a tenancy four months later for the same price that he had declined, I find the landlord did not take all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss.
The landlord considered that two or three months was usual to re-tenant a high end, one-of-a kind property such as this, and I note that there were two applications made within this timeframe which accurately reflected an acceptable rental for this property at this time.
I have calculated rent arrears based on a three month period which would have run from 12 March 2024 until 11 June 2024, to re-tenant the property. I have calculated this at $1,750.00 per week which is what the tenants were paying.
The landlord claims $193.78 for unpaid water rates. The tenants do not dispute this amount.
The amounts are ordered.

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 must also replace standard light bulbs.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord provided the tenants with a quote for cleaning the premises and the tenant accepted the quote and instructed the landlord to proceed on that basis, which the landlord did. The tenant now disputes the amount as being rather high. Without a good reason to go behind what was agreed in good faith by the parties, I decline to so. The cleaning costs as agreed by the parties is ordered.
The tenant did not return one of the keys and accepts this meant the landlord was in a position where he had to replace the locks. The tenant believes the amount claimed is too high. However the landlord provided an invoice which proves the amount, and it is ordered.

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.
At the end of the tenancy, a light was broken. The tenant intended to fix the light, but ran out of time, and as with the cleaning agreed to pay for the repairs. The repair then cost more than the tenant expected to pay and the tenant now disputes the amount.
The landlord claims $952.20 for the light and its installation charged by the electrician on 3 May 2024. This includes waiting time that the electrician charged while the electricity which had been disconnected at the end of the tenancy, was reconnected by Mercury Energy. The landlord believes the tenants should be liable for this because they did not advise the landlord that the power was being disconnected.
It is usual practice at the end of a tenancy to close accounts associated with the premises in question. The RTA does not require the tenant to advise the landlord they are doing so. By this time the landlord was in possession of the property, and had full responsibility for it. I therefore deduct the one and a half hours waiting time the electrician charges from the bill.
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.
The amount is proved.
The landlord also claimed $400.00 to remove a television bracket from a wall in a lounge and repair and repaint the wall. The landlord says the tenant installed the television bracket.
The tenant denied installing the television bracket and stated it was there at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord produced photographs as part of his application, but the photographs are not conclusive. The landlord accepted that the wall was already damaged at the beginning of the tenancy.
I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenants installed the television bracket, and nor have I seen information that proves the wall has been repaired subsequent to the tenancy.
This claim is not proved. Exemplary damages
The landlord claims $1,500.00 exemplary damages for the tenants failing to quit the premises at the end of the tenancy, and $1,500.00 exemplary damages because the tenant fell into rent arrears.
I decline to award exemplary damages on the second of these claims, and the first of these claims is not proved.
Because Auckland Property Management Solutions Limited As Agent For Jinyu Li has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4925613 — Rent arrears at 46 Nihill Crescent, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071

Tenancy Tribunal case 4925613 — Rent arrears at 46 Nihill Crescent, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management