What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4950153?

The tribunal order states: Hayley Jane Fisher must pay Fava Realty Limited $3,577.18 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4950153?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,000.07 awarded to landlord; Blind (Lounge: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,995.11 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4950153?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4950153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11027065-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4950153?

The tribunal order states: Hayley Jane Fisher must pay Fava Realty Limited $3,577.18 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4950153?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,000.07 awarded to landlord; Blind (Lounge: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,995.11 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4950153?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4950153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11027065-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 8 Cornwall Park Ave, Greenlane, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4950153 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4950153 — net $3,577.18 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$7,000.07	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Repairs: Walls	$1,380.00	Repairs: Walls
Repairs: Blind (lounge	$175.00	Repairs: Blind (lounge
Water rates	$1,995.11	Water rates
Net award	$3,577.18
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,577.18

The landlord attended the hearing, set down to be conducted via video. The tenant did not attend. Two subsequent calls to the tenant went unanswered and to voicemail. After the first call went to voicemail, a brief message was left introducing myself and explaining the purpose of the call. The message concluded with the advice I would try a second time after waiting some minutes. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after the second call also went unanswered.

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 ended on 26 May 2024. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord and tenant both provided rent summaries. The difference was one day. This is more than likely the 27 May 2024. I consider it more likely than not possession returned earlier that day and tenant liability ended 26 May 2024. Therefore, I award the rent arrears of $7000.07.

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. Walls (multiple). A range of damage was evidenced in the photos provided. The premises was brand new at the commencement of this tenancy. While some wear and tear may be seen, there was impact damage, holes from wall hangings and what appears to be many small holes from darts that failed to hit the dartboard. The landlord claimed $1380.00 for the repairs required. As the owner built the premises, and has the technical skills and personnel at hand, the costs were based on a quote. Having considered the damage and repair required, even allowing for some depreciation, I find the cost claimed appears reasonable and it is awarded. b. A roller blind in the lounge has damage to the lower right. This was more than likely from young children in the house. The quote for two roller blinds (by the owner) was $350.00 ex GST. The evidence supports one blind needing repair. No evidence of a damaged second blind was available. I have adopted half of the ex-GST cost ($175.00) as reasonable compensation for the roller blind repair.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation where appropriate. 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 walls at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

The final compensation claim was for $1380.00, being the quote to repair water damaged MDF board at the base of some kitchen cabinetry. The photos provided by the landord were reviewed together via the sharing function of Teams. I did not see any obvious damage that would have compromised the waterproofing finish of the MDF, such that water damage was a consequence. The base sits on a tiled kitchen floor and some exposure to water from activities such as mopping or liquid spills could be reasonably expected. I am not satisfied that landlord has been able to establish the swelling arose from any careless or intentional damage by the tenant so the claim must be dismissed. Filing fee

Because Fava Realty Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4950153 — net $3,577.18 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$7,000.07	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Repairs: Walls	$1,380.00	Repairs: Walls
Repairs: Blind (lounge	$175.00	Repairs: Blind (lounge
Water rates	$1,995.11	Water rates
Net award	$3,577.18
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,577.18

Order

Hayley Jane Fisher must pay Fava Realty Limited $3,577.18 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $7,000.00 (6453813-006) to Fava Realty Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, set down to be conducted via video. The tenant did not attend. Two subsequent calls to the tenant went unanswered and to voicemail. After the first call went to voicemail, a brief message was left introducing myself and explaining the purpose of the call. The message concluded with the advice I would try a second time after waiting some minutes. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after the second call also went unanswered.
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 ended on 26 May 2024. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord and tenant both provided rent summaries. The difference was one day. This is more than likely the 27 May 2024. I consider it more likely than not possession returned earlier that day and tenant liability ended 26 May 2024. Therefore, I award the rent arrears of $7000.07.

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. Walls (multiple). A range of damage was evidenced in the photos provided. The premises was brand new at the commencement of this tenancy. While some wear and tear may be seen, there was impact damage, holes from wall hangings and what appears to be many small holes from darts that failed to hit the dartboard. The landlord claimed $1380.00 for the repairs required. As the owner built the premises, and has the technical skills and personnel at hand, the costs were based on a quote. Having considered the damage and repair required, even allowing for some depreciation, I find the cost claimed appears reasonable and it is awarded. b. A roller blind in the lounge has damage to the lower right. This was more than likely from young children in the house. The quote for two roller blinds (by the owner) was $350.00 ex GST. The evidence supports one blind needing repair. No evidence of a damaged second blind was available. I have adopted half of the ex-GST cost ($175.00) as reasonable compensation for the roller blind repair.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation where appropriate. 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 walls at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The final compensation claim was for $1380.00, being the quote to repair water damaged MDF board at the base of some kitchen cabinetry. The photos provided by the landord were reviewed together via the sharing function of Teams. I did not see any obvious damage that would have compromised the waterproofing finish of the MDF, such that water damage was a consequence. The base sits on a tiled kitchen floor and some exposure to water from activities such as mopping or liquid spills could be reasonably expected. I am not satisfied that landlord has been able to establish the swelling arose from any careless or intentional damage by the tenant so the claim must be dismissed. Filing fee
Because Fava Realty Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4950153 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 5, 8 Cornwall Park Ave, Greenlane, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4950153 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 5, 8 Cornwall Park Ave, Greenlane, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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 and water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions