What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4983452?

The tribunal order states: Natalia Evgenevna Kasparova must pay Judy Wai Kang Fong $4,022.43

How much money was awarded in case 4983452?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $5.30 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $2,190.00 awarded to landlord; Paint Roller And Brush: $11.30 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $235.15 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Purchase Curtain Rail: $33.06 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $260.71 awarded to landlord; Replace Blinds: $132.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Broken Toilet Seat: $58.01 awarded to landlord; Replace Fridge Shelves: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Two Light Fittings: $99.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4983452?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4983452?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11719135-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4983452?

The tribunal order states: Natalia Evgenevna Kasparova must pay Judy Wai Kang Fong $4,022.43

How much money was awarded in case 4983452?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $5.30 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $2,190.00 awarded to landlord; Paint Roller And Brush: $11.30 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $235.15 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Purchase Curtain Rail: $33.06 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $260.71 awarded to landlord; Replace Blinds: $132.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Broken Toilet Seat: $58.01 awarded to landlord; Replace Fridge Shelves: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Two Light Fittings: $99.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4983452?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4983452?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11719135-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1D, 8 Scotia Place, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4983452 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4983452 — net $4,022.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 April 2024	$260.71		Rent arrears to 17 April 2024
Replace fridge shelves	$50.00		Replace fridge shelves
Replace broken toilet seat	$58.01		Replace broken toilet seat
Replace two light fittings	$99.90		Replace two light fittings
Repairs to walls and ceiling	$2,200.00		Repairs to walls and ceiling
Paint purchase for wall and ceiling repair	$235.15		Paint purchase for wall and ceiling repair
Paint roller and brush	$11.30		Paint roller and brush
Replace blinds	$132.00		Replace blinds
Purchase curtain rail	$33.06		Purchase curtain rail
Labour to repair lights, wardrobe, curtain rail, toilet seat	$180.00		Labour to repair lights, wardrobe, curtain rail, toilet seat
Light bulbs/batteries	$5.30		Light bulbs/batteries
Lost rent from 18 April 2024 to 29 May 2024 (6 weeks	$2,190.00		Lost rent from 18 April 2024 to 29 May 2024 (6 weeks
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond refunded to landlord (7/11/24		$1,460.00	Bond refunded to landlord (7/11/24
Total award	$5,482.43	$1,460.00
Net award	$4,022.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,022.43

Order

Natalia Evgenevna Kasparova must pay Judy Wai Kang Fong $4,022.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Natalia Evgenevna Kasparova’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Attendance

The landlord attended the hearing with a support person. The tenant did not appear. We waited for half an hour for the tenant to appear and/or to communicate with the registry about her reasons for her nonappearance.
It is of note that: a. The tenant did not attend the last hearing, on 7 November 2024, citing she was “in a depressed state that day” and unable to attend. In addition, she stated she had not had sufficient sleep to be able to present her case due to the terrible commotion by her neighbours late the prior evening. The adjudicator granted the tenant a rehearing; b. Tribunal records indicate that Ms Kasparova has failed to attend at least one previous hearing, involving a different tenancy.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend. Registry confirmed to me that she had emailed it last night about today’s hearing and it had confirmed the date, time and place of the hearing with her, and attached another copy of the notice of hearing for her information. Parties Claims
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The application for an adjournment was refused and the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
Ms Fong has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant claims the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and interfered with her reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. She seeks return of the bond, compensation, and exemplary damages. Civil Burden of Proof
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

LANDLORD CLAIMS

How much rent does the tenant owe?

The landlord has proven the tenancy ended on 17 April 2024, as that is when she got vacant possession of the premise.
Ms Fong provided rent records which proved the amount Ms Kasparov owed for rent at the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant liable for to the landlord for damage to the premises?

Ms Fong has provided evidence that proves during the tenancy, the walls and ceiling were extensively damaged by the tenant, a blind was pulled down and was not able to be refitted, the toilet seat was irreparably broken, two wall light covers were missing as was the kitchen rangehood’s bulb, and a wardrobe clothes rail was broken from its fitting.
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. 1
In this case the evidence proves it is more likely than not that the tenant damaged the walls in ceilings when upset by the actions of her neighbours or when she was in a funk. The photographic evidence shows there were many dents in the walls and the ceiling for example, that may have been due to the tenant violently banging on walls shared with neighbours and the ceiling below the above neighbour’s floor. There were two big holes in the wall gib also.
The tenant attempted to repair the damage to the walls and ceiling herself, but the repairs were not to a reasonable professional standard and required further remedial work.
Ms Fong gave oral evidence and provided photographs to support her claims.
I am satisfied that the damage complained of occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear and that on the balance of probabilities that the damage was caused carelessly or intentionally by the tenant.
Ms Fong provided invoices for the labour, replacement parts, and materials required to restore the premises.
The amounts ordered are proved. Loss rent
The landlord lost rent for 42 days because of the type and amount of careless damage caused by the tenant and the cleaning the landlord and her friend had to undertake to get the premise back to a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The landlord has been awarded the 42 days lost rent incurred, for the period 18 April to 29 May 2024.

TENANT CLAIMS

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Landlords have a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 2 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord 1 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 2 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be...”
Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 3 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation...
I have read the tenant’s submission and the evidence she supplied.
The statement and evidence did not raise a persuasive narrative that the landlord had failed to maintain the premises. Ms Fong has gone through the tenant’s account and denies failing in her duty to maintain the premises.
The tenant bears the onus of proving her claim on the balance of probabilities. She has not discharged the onus. This claim is dismissed. Did the landlord interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace?
Landlords must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises: s 38(2) of the RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00: s 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person": MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Black’s Law Dictionary 4 defines “harassment” as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
The New Oxford Dictionary of English“ 5 defines “harass” as: subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation”. 3 Ibid. 4 Bryan A Gardener (ed) Black’s Law Dictionary (8 th ed, West Group, 2004). 5 Patrick Hanks (ed) (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998).
The tenant had problems with her neighbours during the tenancy, one of which has raised an email complaint about the tenant’s aggressive and disruptive conduct and the sounds of plates and other items being thrown at the walls and ceilings late at night and in the early hours of the morning. This neighbour also complains about confrontational events outside the apartment, stating the tenant accosted and verbally abused the complainant for no apparent reason .
None of the other neighbours were Ms Fong’s tenants, so she had no ability to control their conduct. The tenant was free to raise a complaint with the body corporate if she wanted to have another tenant’s alleged disruptive conduct investigated.
The material the tenant submitted does not raise a credible narrative that Ms Fong interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy.
This claim is dismissed.

OTHER ORDERS

Filing fee

Ms Fong has wholly succeeded in her claim. Ms Kasparova must reimburse her for the cost of the filing fee. Bond
The Bond Centre has already paid the bond over to Ms Fong in payment towards the monetary order made in this decision.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4983452 — net $4,022.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 April 2024	$260.71		Rent arrears to 17 April 2024
Replace fridge shelves	$50.00		Replace fridge shelves
Replace broken toilet seat	$58.01		Replace broken toilet seat
Replace two light fittings	$99.90		Replace two light fittings
Repairs to walls and ceiling	$2,200.00		Repairs to walls and ceiling
Paint purchase for wall and ceiling repair	$235.15		Paint purchase for wall and ceiling repair
Paint roller and brush	$11.30		Paint roller and brush
Replace blinds	$132.00		Replace blinds
Purchase curtain rail	$33.06		Purchase curtain rail
Labour to repair lights, wardrobe, curtain rail, toilet seat	$180.00		Labour to repair lights, wardrobe, curtain rail, toilet seat
Light bulbs/batteries	$5.30		Light bulbs/batteries
Lost rent from 18 April 2024 to 29 May 2024 (6 weeks	$2,190.00		Lost rent from 18 April 2024 to 29 May 2024 (6 weeks
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond refunded to landlord (7/11/24		$1,460.00	Bond refunded to landlord (7/11/24
Total award	$5,482.43	$1,460.00
Net award	$4,022.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,022.43

Order

Natalia Evgenevna Kasparova must pay Judy Wai Kang Fong $4,022.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Natalia Evgenevna Kasparova’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Attendance

The landlord attended the hearing with a support person. The tenant did not appear. We waited for half an hour for the tenant to appear and/or to communicate with the registry about her reasons for her nonappearance.
It is of note that: a. The tenant did not attend the last hearing, on 7 November 2024, citing she was “in a depressed state that day” and unable to attend. In addition, she stated she had not had sufficient sleep to be able to present her case due to the terrible commotion by her neighbours late the prior evening. The adjudicator granted the tenant a rehearing; b. Tribunal records indicate that Ms Kasparova has failed to attend at least one previous hearing, involving a different tenancy.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend. Registry confirmed to me that she had emailed it last night about today’s hearing and it had confirmed the date, time and place of the hearing with her, and attached another copy of the notice of hearing for her information. Parties Claims
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The application for an adjournment was refused and the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
Ms Fong has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant claims the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and interfered with her reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. She seeks return of the bond, compensation, and exemplary damages. Civil Burden of Proof
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

LANDLORD CLAIMS

How much rent does the tenant owe?

The landlord has proven the tenancy ended on 17 April 2024, as that is when she got vacant possession of the premise.
Ms Fong provided rent records which proved the amount Ms Kasparov owed for rent at the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant liable for to the landlord for damage to the premises?

Ms Fong has provided evidence that proves during the tenancy, the walls and ceiling were extensively damaged by the tenant, a blind was pulled down and was not able to be refitted, the toilet seat was irreparably broken, two wall light covers were missing as was the kitchen rangehood’s bulb, and a wardrobe clothes rail was broken from its fitting.
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. 1
In this case the evidence proves it is more likely than not that the tenant damaged the walls in ceilings when upset by the actions of her neighbours or when she was in a funk. The photographic evidence shows there were many dents in the walls and the ceiling for example, that may have been due to the tenant violently banging on walls shared with neighbours and the ceiling below the above neighbour’s floor. There were two big holes in the wall gib also.
The tenant attempted to repair the damage to the walls and ceiling herself, but the repairs were not to a reasonable professional standard and required further remedial work.
Ms Fong gave oral evidence and provided photographs to support her claims.
I am satisfied that the damage complained of occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear and that on the balance of probabilities that the damage was caused carelessly or intentionally by the tenant.
Ms Fong provided invoices for the labour, replacement parts, and materials required to restore the premises.
The amounts ordered are proved. Loss rent
The landlord lost rent for 42 days because of the type and amount of careless damage caused by the tenant and the cleaning the landlord and her friend had to undertake to get the premise back to a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The landlord has been awarded the 42 days lost rent incurred, for the period 18 April to 29 May 2024.

TENANT CLAIMS

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Landlords have a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 2 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord 1 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 2 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be...”
Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 3 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation...
I have read the tenant’s submission and the evidence she supplied.
The statement and evidence did not raise a persuasive narrative that the landlord had failed to maintain the premises. Ms Fong has gone through the tenant’s account and denies failing in her duty to maintain the premises.
The tenant bears the onus of proving her claim on the balance of probabilities. She has not discharged the onus. This claim is dismissed. Did the landlord interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace?
Landlords must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises: s 38(2) of the RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00: s 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person": MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Black’s Law Dictionary 4 defines “harassment” as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
The New Oxford Dictionary of English“ 5 defines “harass” as: subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation”. 3 Ibid. 4 Bryan A Gardener (ed) Black’s Law Dictionary (8 th ed, West Group, 2004). 5 Patrick Hanks (ed) (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998).
The tenant had problems with her neighbours during the tenancy, one of which has raised an email complaint about the tenant’s aggressive and disruptive conduct and the sounds of plates and other items being thrown at the walls and ceilings late at night and in the early hours of the morning. This neighbour also complains about confrontational events outside the apartment, stating the tenant accosted and verbally abused the complainant for no apparent reason .
None of the other neighbours were Ms Fong’s tenants, so she had no ability to control their conduct. The tenant was free to raise a complaint with the body corporate if she wanted to have another tenant’s alleged disruptive conduct investigated.
The material the tenant submitted does not raise a credible narrative that Ms Fong interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy.
This claim is dismissed.

OTHER ORDERS

Filing fee

Ms Fong has wholly succeeded in her claim. Ms Kasparova must reimburse her for the cost of the filing fee. Bond
The Bond Centre has already paid the bond over to Ms Fong in payment towards the monetary order made in this decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4983452 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1D, 8 Scotia Place, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4983452 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1D, 8 Scotia Place, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

LANDLORD CLAIMS

How much rent does the tenant owe?

Is the tenant liable for to the landlord for damage to the premises?

TENANT CLAIMS

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

LANDLORD CLAIMS

How much rent does the tenant owe?

Is the tenant liable for to the landlord for damage to the premises?

TENANT CLAIMS

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions