What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4955077?

The tribunal order states: Jennae Reanna Murphy must pay Le Prou Trust Limited (Trustees: Sarah Jane

How much money was awarded in case 4955077?

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 4955077?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Property damage, Mould & damp, Lock/Key Replacement, Rubbish Removal, Replace Furnishings, Lawns And Garden Work.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4955077?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11601186-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4955077?

The tribunal order states: Jennae Reanna Murphy must pay Le Prou Trust Limited (Trustees: Sarah Jane

How much money was awarded in case 4955077?

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 4955077?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Property damage, Mould & damp, Lock/Key Replacement, Rubbish Removal, Replace Furnishings, Lawns And Garden Work.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4955077?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11601186-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

52 Sunnyhaven Avenue, Beach Haven, Auckland 0626 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4955077 — Rent arrears

Order

Jennae Reanna Murphy must pay Le Prou Trust Limited (Trustees: Sarah Jane Baker And Amanda Rutherford) $47,784.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 27 May 2024 under application 4866381.
The$2,000.00 Bond was released to the landlord in June 2024, after the tenant signed the bond release form on 1 June 2024. The bond refund is recorded in this Order as it offsets some of the debt owed to the landlord.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
On 27 May 2024 the Tribunal made an order under application 4866381 terminating the tenancy and awarding $9,100.00 rent arrears to 27 May 2024, and reimbursing the filing fee of $20.44. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. The amount still owing from this order is $8,370.40.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears from 28 May 2024 to 1 June 2024 (5 days), compensation for damages and reimbursement of the filing fee. The bond has been paid to the landlord after the tenant signed the bond release form on 1 June 2024.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 1 June 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has suffered 20 weeks lost rental income because of the intentional and careless damage done by the tenant between the 8 May 2024 inspection and the final inspection undertaken on 1 June 2024. It is of note that this damage occurred after the tenancy was ended by Tribunal Order 4899381 on 27 May 2024 and appears to have been done in response to the eviction.
20 weeks lost rent has been incurred by the landlord, who has been unable to let the property again until the beginning of February 2025, due to the extensive damage done to the premise by the tenant. I am satisfied the landlord has proven it suffered the loss of 20 weeks lost rent and have made an award of $15,900.00 to the landlord.

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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish or her belongings, including her motor vehicle, furniture, white wear and other items. None of the items had more value than the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. As such, the landlord has disposed of the extensive amounts of rubbish and belongings in three large skip bins and three trailer loads of rubbish.
To the best of the landlord’s knowledge, either the tenant or the Council has removed the motor vehicle from out the front of the property. Therefore no cost was incurred in disposing of the motor vehicle
The tenant did not return the keys, so the locks had to be changed.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a. Light fittings; b. Smoke alarms x 3; c. Window handles.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs and smoke alarm batteries.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 landlord produced photographs of damage done by the tenant at some time between the 8 May 2024 inspection and the 1 June 2024 exit inspection. The damage is extensive and the majority of it appears to be intentional damage. Some damage is as a result of the tenant’s careless acts or omissions, but none of the damage is fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for any of the damage.
Intentional damage is as follows: a. Hole cut in lounge floor; b. Blocked toilets stuffed with children’s toys and other items then the tenant has used them resulting in excrement over the top of the blockages to the point the toilets had to be replaced as they could not be cleared; c. Urine soaked floors; d. Damage to window where tenant broke into the house after being evicted and was trespassed; e. Damage to sliding door where tenant broke into the house after being evicted and was trespassed again; f. Pen/crayon writing all over the walls; g. Random holes of varying sizes and patterns in walls throughout the premise; h. Frame of a kauri kitchen draw damaged to the point it was not reparable and a custom made replacement draw had to be made to match the other kitchen cupboards; i. Damage to the skirting boards and walls apart from holes.
Careless damage is as follows: a. Broken window latches b. Chips in wooden doors and cupboards; c. Handles missing from drawers and cupboards; d. Ensuite vanity panels damaged and a poor repair attempt made; e. Nail gun attached shade cloth to patio railing damage not repaired; f. Light fittings broken or removed; and g. Blinds and curtains mouldy and broken from house not being aired out and careless use.
The landlord has made insurance claims for some of the intentional damage and nine of these claims have been accepted by the insurer for the floor and wall damage. The excess of $500.00 for each of these accepted claims has been awarded to the landlord.
The landlord has provided receipts and invoices for the remaining costs claimed that were not covered by insurance.
The amounts ordered are 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. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because Le Prou Trust Limited (Trustees: Sarah Jane Baker And Amanda Rutherford) has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4955077 — Rent arrears at 52 Sunnyhaven Avenue, Beach Haven, Auckland 0626

Tenancy Tribunal case 4955077 — Rent arrears at 52 Sunnyhaven Avenue, Beach Haven, Auckland 0626

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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?

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