What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4938313?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4938313?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,005.00 awarded to landlord; Hole In Wall: $502.55 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4938313?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4938313?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11152637-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4938313?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4938313?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,005.00 awarded to landlord; Hole In Wall: $502.55 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4938313?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4938313?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11152637-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 38, 349 New North Road, Kingsland, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4938313 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4938313 — net $1,534.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 July 2024 (less bond paid of	$1,005.00	Rent arrears to 8 July 2024 (less bond paid of
Repairs: Hole in wall	$502.55	Repairs: Hole in wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,534.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,534.55

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The bond of $350.00 is to be refunded to Larchwood Trustees Limited.
Matthew Patrick Rickard must pay Larchwood Trustees Limited $1,534.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Janus Zeng and Linda Barker appeared on behalf of the landlord. They produced a signed authority to act from Murphy McDade, who is the trustee of the Larchwood Trust.
The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The tenant filed their application on 10 July 2024 seeking a refund of the bond and compensation.
The landlord filed a cross-application on 19 November 2024 seeking rent arrears, refund of the bond and compensation for alleged damage.
The hearing was scheduled for 2 December 2024. On 27 November 2024, the tenant contacted the Tribunal requesting an adjournment. The tenant stated that they had a doctor’s appointment booked for the same day and that they had been waiting a long time for this appointment. The Registry advised the tenant to submit proof of the appointment for me to consider. The tenant did not do this. The tenant’s request for an adjournment was not granted.
The tenant did not attend the hearing on 2 December 2024. Their application is dismissed. See section 92 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Rent arrears
The tenancy ended on 8 July 2024 however, the landlord states that the tenant did not vacate the property until 24 July 2024. The landlord seeks rent arrears of $1,955.00 however, the rent summary provided only shows rent arrears up to 8 July 2024 of $1,355.00. The landlord not proven the total claimed for rent arrears up to 24 July 2024, only the total up to 8 July 2024, namely $1,355.00.
The tenant paid a bond of $350.00 at the beginning of the tenancy. This is a boarding house tenancy and as the bond was only one weeks’ rent, the landlord was not required to lodge it. See section 66D(1)(a) RTA. I have ordered that the bond be refunded to the landlord and therefore, I deduct $350.00 from the total rent arrears owed by the tenant. The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is therefore granted for a total of $1,005.00.

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.
The landlord sought compensation for the following alleged damage: a. Broken bathroom window:$476.10 (including GST) b. Hole in the wall:$502.55 (including GST)
I deal with each matter in turn below. Bathroom window
The landlord claims that visitors to the tenant’s property broke the bathroom window. The landlord claims these visitors were at the property with the tenant’s permission. In support of their application, the landlord submitted an email from the property manager recounting the events, a photograph of the broken window and a copy of the Police report.
I have reviewed the evidence provided by the landlord and I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the people who broke the bathroom window were at the property with the tenant’s permission. The email states that at around 5:08am two people were at the boarding house to find the tenant. They could not enter the building and therefore, they threw something (the landlord claims it was a rock) at the window. The fact that these people could not access the tenant’s bedroom and therefore threw a rock at it indicates to me that they were not at the address with the tenant’s permission. The Police report also notes that the tenant was threatened by the visitors. This further supports the conclusion that the visitors were not at the property with the tenant’s permission.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced that the visitors who broke the window were at the property with the tenant’s permission. The landlord has not proven that the tenant is responsible for the damage. The landlord’s application for compensation to repair the bathroom window is dismissed. Hole in the wall
The landlord claims the tenant punch a large hole in the wall in the hallway of the boarding house. The landlord provided the following evidence in support of their claim: a. A text message from the weekend property manager stating that the tenant caused a giant hole in the wall outside room 36 and the tenant of this bedroom was scared. b. A photograph of repair job, which shows a large patch repair was completed. c. An invoice from a contractor for $502.55 (including GST) to repair the hole.
The landlord did not call the weekend manager to whom the incident was reported as a witness, nor did they call the person who claims they saw the tenant punch a hole in the wall as witness. I consider the evidence to support the landlord’s claim that the tenant punched a hole in the wall to be relatively light however, in the absence of any evidence from the tenant to dispute otherwise, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for causing a large hole in the wall. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $502.55 (including GST) is granted in full.
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. Filing fee
Because Larchwood Trustees Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4938313 — net $1,534.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 July 2024 (less bond paid of	$1,005.00	Rent arrears to 8 July 2024 (less bond paid of
Repairs: Hole in wall	$502.55	Repairs: Hole in wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,534.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,534.55

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The bond of $350.00 is to be refunded to Larchwood Trustees Limited.
Matthew Patrick Rickard must pay Larchwood Trustees Limited $1,534.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Janus Zeng and Linda Barker appeared on behalf of the landlord. They produced a signed authority to act from Murphy McDade, who is the trustee of the Larchwood Trust.
The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The tenant filed their application on 10 July 2024 seeking a refund of the bond and compensation.
The landlord filed a cross-application on 19 November 2024 seeking rent arrears, refund of the bond and compensation for alleged damage.
The hearing was scheduled for 2 December 2024. On 27 November 2024, the tenant contacted the Tribunal requesting an adjournment. The tenant stated that they had a doctor’s appointment booked for the same day and that they had been waiting a long time for this appointment. The Registry advised the tenant to submit proof of the appointment for me to consider. The tenant did not do this. The tenant’s request for an adjournment was not granted.
The tenant did not attend the hearing on 2 December 2024. Their application is dismissed. See section 92 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Rent arrears
The tenancy ended on 8 July 2024 however, the landlord states that the tenant did not vacate the property until 24 July 2024. The landlord seeks rent arrears of $1,955.00 however, the rent summary provided only shows rent arrears up to 8 July 2024 of $1,355.00. The landlord not proven the total claimed for rent arrears up to 24 July 2024, only the total up to 8 July 2024, namely $1,355.00.
The tenant paid a bond of $350.00 at the beginning of the tenancy. This is a boarding house tenancy and as the bond was only one weeks’ rent, the landlord was not required to lodge it. See section 66D(1)(a) RTA. I have ordered that the bond be refunded to the landlord and therefore, I deduct $350.00 from the total rent arrears owed by the tenant. The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is therefore granted for a total of $1,005.00.

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.
The landlord sought compensation for the following alleged damage: a. Broken bathroom window:$476.10 (including GST) b. Hole in the wall:$502.55 (including GST)
I deal with each matter in turn below. Bathroom window
The landlord claims that visitors to the tenant’s property broke the bathroom window. The landlord claims these visitors were at the property with the tenant’s permission. In support of their application, the landlord submitted an email from the property manager recounting the events, a photograph of the broken window and a copy of the Police report.
I have reviewed the evidence provided by the landlord and I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the people who broke the bathroom window were at the property with the tenant’s permission. The email states that at around 5:08am two people were at the boarding house to find the tenant. They could not enter the building and therefore, they threw something (the landlord claims it was a rock) at the window. The fact that these people could not access the tenant’s bedroom and therefore threw a rock at it indicates to me that they were not at the address with the tenant’s permission. The Police report also notes that the tenant was threatened by the visitors. This further supports the conclusion that the visitors were not at the property with the tenant’s permission.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced that the visitors who broke the window were at the property with the tenant’s permission. The landlord has not proven that the tenant is responsible for the damage. The landlord’s application for compensation to repair the bathroom window is dismissed. Hole in the wall
The landlord claims the tenant punch a large hole in the wall in the hallway of the boarding house. The landlord provided the following evidence in support of their claim: a. A text message from the weekend property manager stating that the tenant caused a giant hole in the wall outside room 36 and the tenant of this bedroom was scared. b. A photograph of repair job, which shows a large patch repair was completed. c. An invoice from a contractor for $502.55 (including GST) to repair the hole.
The landlord did not call the weekend manager to whom the incident was reported as a witness, nor did they call the person who claims they saw the tenant punch a hole in the wall as witness. I consider the evidence to support the landlord’s claim that the tenant punched a hole in the wall to be relatively light however, in the absence of any evidence from the tenant to dispute otherwise, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for causing a large hole in the wall. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $502.55 (including GST) is granted in full.
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. Filing fee
Because Larchwood Trustees Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4938313 — Rent arrears at Room 38, 349 New North Road, Kingsland, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4938313 — Rent arrears at Room 38, 349 New North Road, Kingsland, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions