What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4993069?

The tribunal order states: Tarek Ramadan Mohamed Attia Beheira must pay Barfoot & Thompson Property

How much money was awarded in case 4993069?

Cleaning: $235.29 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $10,150.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $94.12 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4993069?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4993069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11184098-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4993069?

The tribunal order states: Tarek Ramadan Mohamed Attia Beheira must pay Barfoot & Thompson Property

How much money was awarded in case 4993069?

Cleaning: $235.29 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $10,150.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $94.12 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4993069?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4993069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11184098-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2607, 10 Commerce Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4993069 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4993069 — net $4,706.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 October 2024	$10,150.00	Rent arrears to 14 October 2024
Cleaning	$235.29	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$94.12	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,706.41
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,706.41

Order

Tarek Ramadan Mohamed Attia Beheira must pay Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As Agent For Anita Baldanf $4,706.41 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,800.00 (6444106-002) to Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As Agent For Anita Baldanf immediately.
The landlord’s application for compensation for a missing charger is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing with his wife as a support person. Ms Hong and Ms Boyle from Barfoot and Thompson Limited attended the hearing for the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord had initially applied for electricity and internet rates and a spot clean of the engineered stone bench. However, these claims were withdrawn prior to the hearing.

Is the tenant liable for rent?

The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy which expired on 08 April 2024. It was agreed by the parties that the tenancy would be extended for a further fixed term period of six months. The expiry date for the tenancy was 14 October 2024.
On or about 19 June 2024, the tenant asked to break the lease early. That day, Ms Hong sent an email to the tenant saying that she would seek the owner’s consent to release him early from the tenancy. The landlord did not agree to release the tenant early from the tenancy.
On 27 August 2024, the tenant fell into rent arrears. On that day, Ms Garizlo, Property Manager for Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited, sent an email to the tenant advising him that his rent had not been received. Later that day, the tenant replied to Ms Garizlo saying that he had vacated the premises on 25 August 2024.
Ms Hong has provided a rent ledger showing that the tenant has not paid rent for the period 27 August 2024 to 14 October 2024. Ms Hong advises that the property was not relet during this time.
The tenant says he is not liable for the rent arrears because he: had been a tenant for over one year; had attempted to negotiate early termination of the tenancy in good faith; the landlord had not mitigated its losses. Was the landlord obliged to allow the tenant to terminate the tenancy early or to negotiate with him about the early termination of the tenancy?
The usual legal position with fixed term contracts, is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it will only be in limited circumstances, that a decision maker like the Tribunal would interfere with that term. In the case of residential tenancies, one of these circumstances is found in section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). This section provides that if either party has an unexpected change in circumstances, they can apply to the Tribunal to end the tenancy early. If the Tribunal finds that the applicant will suffer from severe hardship if the tenancy continues, the Tribunal may decide to end the fixed-term early at a date the Tribunal determines is appropriate. For this to happen the hardship of the applicant, if the tenancy were to continue, would need to be greater than the other person's, if the tenancy were to end early.
In this case, the tenant did not apply to the Tribunal for early release from the fixed-term. The tenant said he was not aware of his right to do so.
In Dmitrovic and Miles v FH 2018 Limited [2021] NZTT 4288277, this Tribunal held that there is no obligation on a landlord to respond to a tenant’s request to terminate a fixed term tenancy within a particular period nor to agree to end a tenancy early.
I find that the landlord was not obliged to agree to the tenant’s request to end the fixed term tenancy early or to negotiate with him on that point.

Was the landlord obligated to mitigate its losses?

The tenant says that he should not be liable for the rent because the landlord failed to mitigate its losses. In particular, the tenant refers to an offer he claims the landlord declined to rent the premises at a lower rate.
Section 49 of the RTA provides that a party suffering the breach must take reasonable steps to limit loss arising from the breach.
In Nest Residential Rentals and Landlord Services Limited v Lisa Folland [2020] NZDC 628, the issue for the District Court was if, where a tenant has abandoned a fixed term tenancy, there is a duty on the landlord to mitigate loss. The District Court considered section 61 of the RTA which provides: (1)On the application of the landlord, the Tribunal may make an order terminating a tenancy where it is satisfied that the tenant has abandoned the premises and the rent is in arrear.
Subsection (2) relates to periodic tenancy. Subsection (3) provides: (3) A tenant who abandons the premises shall, notwithstanding any rule of law to the contrary, be liable to pay the rent for any period up to and including, but not after, the following date: (a) ... (b) in the case of a fixed-term tenancy,— (i) the date of the expiry of the term; or (ii) the date of commencement of a new tenancy of the premises,— whichever is the earlier.
Subsection (4) provides: (4) Nothing in section 49 of this Act shall impose upon the landlord any obligation, on finding that the tenant has abandoned the premises, to make an application under this section or to grant a new tenancy of the premises.
Having considered these provisions, the District Court held: [8] It is clear from that subsection that a tenant who abandons premises shall, in the case of a fixed term tenancy be liable for rent up to the date of expiry of the term or the date of commencement of a new tenancy if that occurs earlier.
I find that the landlord did not have an obligation to mitigate its losses.
The landlord has provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger showing the amount owing at the expiry of the fixed term. This claim is proved.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA provides that 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.
The landlord is seeking $94.12 (including GST) for rubbish removal and $423.53 for cleaning. Having reviewed the photographs provided, I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. That said, I consider the amount charged for cleaning to be excessive. I award $235.29 (including GST) for cleaning (being 4 hours cleaning at $50 plus GST per hour) and $94.12 (including GST) for rubbish removal.

Is the tenant responsible for the missing charger?

The landlord says that a charger for the roller blind motor was provided at the start of the tenancy and was missing when the tenant vacated the premises. There does not appear to be any reference to the charger in the ingoing inspection report. The tenant says that the charger was not provided at the start of the tenancy. When asked how the landlord knew the charger had been provided, reference was made to an empty box that was left in a cupboard.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations including that it is up to the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that the applicant 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any 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.
It is for the landlord to prove that the charger was provided at the start of the tenancy and was not there when the tenant vacated the premises. The landlord has not satisfied me that the charger was provided at the start of the tenancy. This claim is dismissed. Filing fee:
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4993069 — net $4,706.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 October 2024	$10,150.00	Rent arrears to 14 October 2024
Cleaning	$235.29	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$94.12	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,706.41
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,706.41

Order

Tarek Ramadan Mohamed Attia Beheira must pay Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As Agent For Anita Baldanf $4,706.41 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,800.00 (6444106-002) to Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As Agent For Anita Baldanf immediately.
The landlord’s application for compensation for a missing charger is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing with his wife as a support person. Ms Hong and Ms Boyle from Barfoot and Thompson Limited attended the hearing for the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord had initially applied for electricity and internet rates and a spot clean of the engineered stone bench. However, these claims were withdrawn prior to the hearing.

Is the tenant liable for rent?

The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy which expired on 08 April 2024. It was agreed by the parties that the tenancy would be extended for a further fixed term period of six months. The expiry date for the tenancy was 14 October 2024.
On or about 19 June 2024, the tenant asked to break the lease early. That day, Ms Hong sent an email to the tenant saying that she would seek the owner’s consent to release him early from the tenancy. The landlord did not agree to release the tenant early from the tenancy.
On 27 August 2024, the tenant fell into rent arrears. On that day, Ms Garizlo, Property Manager for Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited, sent an email to the tenant advising him that his rent had not been received. Later that day, the tenant replied to Ms Garizlo saying that he had vacated the premises on 25 August 2024.
Ms Hong has provided a rent ledger showing that the tenant has not paid rent for the period 27 August 2024 to 14 October 2024. Ms Hong advises that the property was not relet during this time.
The tenant says he is not liable for the rent arrears because he: had been a tenant for over one year; had attempted to negotiate early termination of the tenancy in good faith; the landlord had not mitigated its losses. Was the landlord obliged to allow the tenant to terminate the tenancy early or to negotiate with him about the early termination of the tenancy?
The usual legal position with fixed term contracts, is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it will only be in limited circumstances, that a decision maker like the Tribunal would interfere with that term. In the case of residential tenancies, one of these circumstances is found in section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). This section provides that if either party has an unexpected change in circumstances, they can apply to the Tribunal to end the tenancy early. If the Tribunal finds that the applicant will suffer from severe hardship if the tenancy continues, the Tribunal may decide to end the fixed-term early at a date the Tribunal determines is appropriate. For this to happen the hardship of the applicant, if the tenancy were to continue, would need to be greater than the other person's, if the tenancy were to end early.
In this case, the tenant did not apply to the Tribunal for early release from the fixed-term. The tenant said he was not aware of his right to do so.
In Dmitrovic and Miles v FH 2018 Limited [2021] NZTT 4288277, this Tribunal held that there is no obligation on a landlord to respond to a tenant’s request to terminate a fixed term tenancy within a particular period nor to agree to end a tenancy early.
I find that the landlord was not obliged to agree to the tenant’s request to end the fixed term tenancy early or to negotiate with him on that point.

Was the landlord obligated to mitigate its losses?

The tenant says that he should not be liable for the rent because the landlord failed to mitigate its losses. In particular, the tenant refers to an offer he claims the landlord declined to rent the premises at a lower rate.
Section 49 of the RTA provides that a party suffering the breach must take reasonable steps to limit loss arising from the breach.
In Nest Residential Rentals and Landlord Services Limited v Lisa Folland [2020] NZDC 628, the issue for the District Court was if, where a tenant has abandoned a fixed term tenancy, there is a duty on the landlord to mitigate loss. The District Court considered section 61 of the RTA which provides: (1)On the application of the landlord, the Tribunal may make an order terminating a tenancy where it is satisfied that the tenant has abandoned the premises and the rent is in arrear.
Subsection (2) relates to periodic tenancy. Subsection (3) provides: (3) A tenant who abandons the premises shall, notwithstanding any rule of law to the contrary, be liable to pay the rent for any period up to and including, but not after, the following date: (a) ... (b) in the case of a fixed-term tenancy,— (i) the date of the expiry of the term; or (ii) the date of commencement of a new tenancy of the premises,— whichever is the earlier.
Subsection (4) provides: (4) Nothing in section 49 of this Act shall impose upon the landlord any obligation, on finding that the tenant has abandoned the premises, to make an application under this section or to grant a new tenancy of the premises.
Having considered these provisions, the District Court held: [8] It is clear from that subsection that a tenant who abandons premises shall, in the case of a fixed term tenancy be liable for rent up to the date of expiry of the term or the date of commencement of a new tenancy if that occurs earlier.
I find that the landlord did not have an obligation to mitigate its losses.
The landlord has provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger showing the amount owing at the expiry of the fixed term. This claim is proved.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA provides that 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.
The landlord is seeking $94.12 (including GST) for rubbish removal and $423.53 for cleaning. Having reviewed the photographs provided, I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. That said, I consider the amount charged for cleaning to be excessive. I award $235.29 (including GST) for cleaning (being 4 hours cleaning at $50 plus GST per hour) and $94.12 (including GST) for rubbish removal.

Is the tenant responsible for the missing charger?

The landlord says that a charger for the roller blind motor was provided at the start of the tenancy and was missing when the tenant vacated the premises. There does not appear to be any reference to the charger in the ingoing inspection report. The tenant says that the charger was not provided at the start of the tenancy. When asked how the landlord knew the charger had been provided, reference was made to an empty box that was left in a cupboard.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations including that it is up to the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that the applicant 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any 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.
It is for the landlord to prove that the charger was provided at the start of the tenancy and was not there when the tenant vacated the premises. The landlord has not satisfied me that the charger was provided at the start of the tenancy. This claim is dismissed. Filing fee:
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4993069 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2607, 10 Commerce Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4993069 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2607, 10 Commerce Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for rent?

Was the landlord obligated to mitigate its losses?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the missing charger?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for rent?

Was the landlord obligated to mitigate its losses?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the missing charger?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions