What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4976777?

The tribunal order states: Tasha Aroha Harris must pay Far North Circle Real Estate Limited T/As Ray

How much money was awarded in case 4976777?

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 4976777?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4976777?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11859326-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4976777?

The tribunal order states: Tasha Aroha Harris must pay Far North Circle Real Estate Limited T/As Ray

How much money was awarded in case 4976777?

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 4976777?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4976777?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11859326-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 75 Allen Bell Drive, Kaitaia, Kaitaia 0410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4976777 — Rent arrears

Order

Tasha Aroha Harris must pay Far North Circle Real Estate Limited T/As Ray White As Agent for Carl Branco Tesvich $2,325.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely. The property manager appeared on behalf of the landlord. Attempts to reach the tenant by phone were unsuccessful.
This was a rehearing of the landlord’s application. The rehearing had been granted because the decision had been issued when in complete.
The landlord had applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Since the first hearing, the bond of $2000 has been paid to the landlord.
The landlord wanted to deal with the rehearing by showing where the shortfalls were in what he was claiming. Because it was a rehearing, all claims must be considered anew. The onus is on the landlord to prove all claims. The previous decision has been set aside and is not binding on the Tribunal. The standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord seeks a total $4,439.62 less the $2000 bond, leaving a total of $2,439.62. The calculation was based on the following: Rent arrears $1,514.28 Water usage 29/09/23 - 27/12/23 $183.62 Water usage 27/12/2023 - 17/07/2024 $113.68 Water usage 17/07/2024 - 10/09/2024 $180.32 Water rates $791.81 Rubbish removal $138.00 Cleaning $200.00 Lawns and Garden work$74.75 Carpet Cleaning $189.75 Repairs: Walls, vanity and floor$1,026.41 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total awarded $4,439.62

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 9 September 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $1,514.29. That amount is ordered.
The claims water rates were extensive.
There are two invoices from the landlord to the tenant for water rates, without any evidence from the Far North District Council. One is dated 27 February 2024 for the period 29/09/23 - 27/12/23. It is for $196.00 less $12.38, leaving a total owing of $183.62.
The only invoice from the Far North District Council was for the period 27 December 2023 to 17 July 2024 for the sum of $791.84.
The next period is covered by an invoice from the landlord for the period 17 July 2024 to 10 September 2024 and is for $180.32.
At the hearing, the landlord said there should be four invoices. The fourth invoice was not on the file. I gave him a further opportunity to file evidence relating to water rates. However the next invoice filed (also from the landlord to the tenant) is for the period 27 December 2023 to 10 September 2024 for $113.68.
However, that period, 27 December 2023 to 10 September 2024 is also covered by the Far North District Council invoice for $791.84 covering the period 17 December 2023 to 17 July 2024 and the landlord’s invoice covering 17 July 2024 to 10 September 2024. The landlord has not explained why this invoice overlaps the periods covered by two other invoices. Therefore, no order is made for the sum of $113.68. The remaining 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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord had provided invoices for cleaning for $200 and removal of greenwaste for $138.00. There was also an invoice for $189.75 for carpet cleaning.
There were no photographs available at the hearing.
The landlord was allowed a further opportunity to send relevant photographs before the end of the day. The landlord provided photographs of the premises at the start of the tenancy as well as copies of routine inspections and photos at the end of the tenancy, along with a copy of a reporting email to the owner.
Because the photographs not submitted until after the hearing and so the landlord could not explain what cleaning was required. From the photos it appeared that some cleaning had been done. The invoice was for the following: Remove Household Items Replace light bulbs Rangehood filters and oil Remove String Clothes Line Clean mud off curtains Under laundry basin Plus surface wipes All sills Bathroom/Kitchen
I am satisfied that some further cleaning was required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and some items needed to be removed.There was a pile of green waste left outside. There were marks on the carpet. Those amounts are ordered.
In addition the photos showed a hole in the lawn that was filled with muddy rainwater. The landlord provided an invoice for $74.75 for filling in the hole. That amount is ordered.
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 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 showing gouges, scrapes and small holes on multiple walls, what appeared to be small cigarette burns on the hard floors, stickers and adhesive hooks left on the walls and marks to the vanity. The tradespeople were able to sand back and fill the burn marks and sand and paint the remainder. The landlord claimed $1,026.41 for the repairs based on an invoice.
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.
Because Far North Circle Real Estate Limited T/As Ray White As Agent Fro Carl Branco Tesvich has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord is reminded that when claiming for cleaning or repairs, photographs of the premises at the start and end of the tenancy are usually provided along with descriptions of the cleaning or repairs claimed as well as itemised invoices.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4976777 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 75 Allen Bell Drive, Kaitaia, Kaitaia 0410

Tenancy Tribunal case 4976777 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 75 Allen Bell Drive, Kaitaia, Kaitaia 0410

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