What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5058192?

The tribunal order states: Jonatas Alessandro Da Silveira must pay Evergold Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5058192?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Letting Fee: $162.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $76.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,645.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $113.85 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $5.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5058192?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5058192?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12146729-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5058192?

The tribunal order states: Jonatas Alessandro Da Silveira must pay Evergold Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5058192?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Letting Fee: $162.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $76.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,645.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $113.85 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $5.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5058192?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5058192?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12146729-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

86 McLeod Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5058192 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5058192 — net $6,310.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 December 2024	$8,645.71	Rent arrears to 24 December 2024
Water rates	$5.60	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$113.85	Rubbish removal
Letting fee	$162.25	Letting fee
Wall repairs	$76.00	Wall repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,310.41
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,310.41

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5058192 — net $6,310.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 December 2024	$8,645.71	Rent arrears to 24 December 2024
Water rates	$5.60	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$113.85	Rubbish removal
Letting fee	$162.25	Letting fee
Wall repairs	$76.00	Wall repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,310.41
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,310.41

Order

Jonatas Alessandro Da Silveira must pay Evergold Property Management Limited As Agent For Millie Erceg No.3 Trust Ltd $6,310.41 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (5571435-004) to Evergold Property Management Limited As Agent For Millie Erceg No.3 Trust Ltd immediately.
The tenant’s claims for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy and reimbursement for repairs to the sunroom are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Ma attended as the property manager. Mr Erceg, the sole director of the company that manages the property for the trust that owns the property, lives overseas and attended by teleconference. The start of the hearing was delayed until 9.45 am because Mr Da Silveira was not present. Mr Erceg was joined at 9.55 am. At 10.10 am, the tenant, Mr Da Silveira arrived.
By the time Mr Da Silveira arrived, the landlord was well into making their claim for rent arrears and reimbursement of reasonable letting fees. Out of fairness to Mr Da Silveira, I set aside the information already given by the landlord and began the hearing da novo.
The landlord filed a significant amount of information which he described as detailed in support of a much extended claim from the original claim of rent arrears and reasonable letting fees. The information was filed on 18 July 2025, the day before the hearing.
Mr Da Silveira was given an adjournment to consider this information before the hearing began. I am cognisant of the fact that Mr Da Silveira had little opportunity to consider the information and prepare a response. Mr Da Silveira stated he was OK with the information provided by Mr Erceg and he wished to proceed with the cross-application today.
The parties signed a one-year fixed-term tenancy agreement to start the tenancy on 30 August 2024 and end on 30 August 2025. There were problems from the outset. On 28 October 2024, 8 weeks and 3 days into the tenancy, Mr Da Silveira gave notice to end the tenancy, and on 10 November 2024 he moved out of the premises.
Mr Da Silveira is seeking an order reducing the fixed-term tenancy to 10 November 2024. He is also seeking to be reimbursed for the cost of repairing the floor in the sunroom.
The landlord opposes the tenant being released that early from the fixed-term tenancy and is seeking rent arrears up to the date of a new tenancy starting on 24 December 2024, $8,645,71, the final water bill of $5.60 and reasonable reletting fees of $550.17.
The landlord also amended their claim to include: a. Removal of rubbish, b. Remediate the damage to the living room wall
Mr Da Silveira’s claims were heard first. The tenant’s claims Reimbursement for costs of fixing the sunroom floor
Mr Da Silveira is claiming $2,450.00 reimbursement for repairing the sunroom floor.
Under section 40(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) a tenant has an obligation to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, a landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
In the start-of-tenancy inspection dated 27 August 2024, the parties noted that the floor in the sunroom was soft. The following entry was recorded:
The sunroom is an annex to the main house. Mr Da Silveira stated that he used it as a laundry and as a play area for his children.
Mr Erceg stated that the sunroom was easily closed off to the rest of the house.
Ms Ma stated that she contacted a contractor to quote on the repair to the floor, prior to the tenancy starting.
Mr Da Silveira followed up with Ms Ma the need for repairs. Ms Ma says she was waiting on Mr Erceg to organise a second quotation. Mr Erceg stated that he was following this up.
I am persuaded there was some small delay in the floor being repaired, and this the best information before me is that this was because of Mr Erceg’s remoteness from the problem, by which I am referring to the fact that Mr Erceg is based overseas.
On 11 September 2024 Mr Da Silveira advised Ms Ma that no one had yet contacted him about the repair.
Ms Ma stated that on 26 September 2024 she received a text message from Mr Da Silveira informing her that the floor in the sunroom was getting worse, it was dangerous, repairs were urgent and couldn’t wait any longer.
Ms Ma replied that the owner wasn’t refusing to fix the floor but was following up with a quote from another contractor.
On his application form to Tenancy Services, Mr Da Silveira states that on 27 September 2024 the particle board floor in the sunroom collapsed.
On 28 September 2024 or 29 September 2024, Mr Da Silveira contacted Ms Ma from a local supply shop to give the price of the plywood product he said was needed to repair the floor. Ms Ma told him she didn’t have authority to approve the purchase, but she would forward him $400.00 from her own funds to get the repairs underway.
Mr Da Silveira produced an invoice dated 28 September 2024 for $2,450.00 which includes 9 sheets of 20 mm plywood flooring at $165.00 per sheet, $1,485.00, labour $740.00, and assorted sundry items needed for the repair. This is not an invoice from a supply shop, but a handwritten invoice including as stated, costs for labour. It appears to be an invoice for work undertaken.
Mr Da Silveira produced photographs of the broken floor and the products needed to repair it, including the flooring.
The flooring used in the repair is not 20 mm plywood as invoiced, but 18 mm particle board. Only 7 of the 9 sheets were needed. At the end of the tenancy, the remaining two sheets were left behind by Mr Da Silveira.
Mr Erceg disputes that he should have to reimburse Mr Da Silveira for the cost of repairing the sunroom floor. He points out that this grade of particle board is not a product that is intended to be used for flooring of this kind and it costs less than half the amount of 20 mm plywood. Information regarding the recommended use for the product was produced by Mr Erceg in support of this point.
It is not disputed that the floor to the sunroom needed replacing. It is a moot point as to whether the landlord was tardy in actioning this repair prior to the floor collapsing. The reasonable timeframe for a repair will vary according to the seriousness of the damage; that is where it is, how serious it is, the effect of the damage on the tenant, etcetera.
From the start of the tenancy until the floor collapsed was only 27 days. Mr Erceg and Ms Ma were in communication regarding the repair being done, but it appears quite evident that only one quotation had been received and delays were occurring because of the difficulty in getting a second quotation.
Once the floor collapsed, the situation clearly became urgent. A remedy was required in a shorter timeframe for this, than was required when the floor was intact. However, Mr Da Silveira produced an invoice for the repair the very next day. If correct, this did not give the landlord any sort of reasonable opportunity to repair the floor themselves.
Up until the floor collapsed, Mr Da Silveira’s remedy was an application to Tenancy Services for a work order, or for a rent reduction for loss of amenity. While the floor was intact, I do not consider it was reasonable for Mr Da Silveira to simply undertake unauthorised repairs himself and expect to be reimbursed at full cost by the landlord. Once the floor collapsed the landlord had a right to be informed and be given the opportunity to repair the floor themselves. I would expect these repairs to have been completed within five working days.
This dispute was exacerbated by the fact that Mr Erceg questioned the qualifications of Mr Da Silveira’s tradesman and the products being used. Mr Erceg stated that he needed to do this as he has a fiduciary duty to the other trustees of the property. He was concerned about insurance and warranties. Mr Da Silveira stated that he found the delay frustrating and he believed Ms Ma’s good work was being hampered by Mr Erceg causing unreasonable delays.
Under normal circumstances I am not persuaded that it would be reasonable to order that Mr Erceg reimburse Mr Da Silveira for work Mr Da Silveira undertook without the authority of the landlord and without the landlord being given an opportunity to undertake the urgent repairs themselves.
But these are not quite normal circumstances: Mr Da Silveira is charging Mr Erceg for one product, plywood at $165.00 per sheet, when another product, particle board, which Mr Erceg says costs $79.00 per sheet and is not fit for purpose, was used. These facts were not challenged by Mr Da Silveira and I am prepared to take judicial notice of them. Furthermore I find the timeframes provided by Mr Da Silveira to be not reliable, and I am concerned that original invoices for the products purchased have not been produced.
For the above reasons I do not find the claim for reimbursement for the repairs proved. Reduction of fixed-term tenancy
Mr Da Silveira has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 30 August 2025. On 28 October 2024 Mr Da Silveira gave notice to end the tenancy early and the last day of the tenancy was 10 November 2024.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Mr Da Silveira raised a number of defects with the property which he says amount to unforeseen changes in circumstances sufficient to give him cause to terminate the fixed-term tenancy early. These are as follows: a. The sunroom floor collapsing and the landlord’s delay in repairing it, b. The dishwasher leaking and then stopping working on 3 October 2024 and not being fixed or replaced by 28 October 2024 when he gave notice, c. Two of the three exterior lights at the property not working, d. The clearlite sunroom roof leaking.
All of these defects are accepted by the landlord. As stated above, the repairs to the intact sunroom floor were being addressed, even if the delay was frustrating to Mr Da Silveira. The repairs to the sunroom were to include repairing the clearlite roof. The landlord stated that by the end of the tenancy the dishwasher had still not been repaired or replaced. This is approximately 37 days, which I believe is too long, even given the supply difficulties the landlord outlined.
There was some confusion in the information provided about the exterior lights, but I determine they were able to be made functional and the landlord was in breach of their duty to maintain in not making them functional. Mr Da Silveira stated that his car was broken into because the lights were not functional.
In my view the landlord is definitely in breach of their obligations under section 45 of the RTA to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard. But I do not consider that this breach goes so far to justify reducing the term of the fixed- term tenancy. That would be using the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a walnut.
The tenant had other remedies available to them that were proportionate to the landlord’s breaches: they could have served a section 56 notice to remedy the landlord’s breach, and they could have applied to the Tribunal for a rent reduction to compensate them for their loss of amenity in each case. The property was largely functioning as could be expected for a property of this age and condition, as was evident at the start of the tenancy. This is the approach that has been taken in similar applications, see for example Ying Li v Onecall Property Management Limited CIV-2022-092-004486 [2023] NZDC 9332.
Maintenance issues throughout a tenancy are foreseeable for properties of this type. Several presented themselves at the beginning of the tenancy. But I do not consider they caused hardship that was severe to the tenant.
For these reasons, the claim for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy is not proved. The landlord’s claims

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenant vacated the premises on 10 November 2024. Because the tenant had signed a fixed-term tenancy and the tenant has not persuaded me that the fixed-term tenancy should be reduced, the tenant is liable for rent until a new tenant took over the tenancy. This occurred on 24 December 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $8,645.71 for rent arrears and $5.60 for unpaid water invoices.
The tenant did not dispute the accuracy of the landlord’s records.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant left the two unused sheets of particle board behind. The landlord is claiming the cost of disposing of this material. The landlord stated that the sheets are still at the property. The tenant stated he had no interest in collecting them.
The claim is 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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
During the tenancy the Mr Da Silveira installed two small brackets above a window. The landlord is seeking $276.00 for removing them and filling the holes. I am not persuaded that this is a reasonable cost to repair the damage and I have substituted a lesser amount.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord is also claiming $550.17 for the cost of finding a replacement tenant.
A landlord is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord as a result of a tenant ending a fixed term tenancy early. See RTA section 44A.
Ms Ma is seeking to be reimbursed for “expenses incurred” in placing a TradeMe advertisement, doing credit checks, reference checks, conducting viewings and general administration costs.
I accept placing advertisements on TradeMe and conducting credit checks incur expenses. These amounts are proved.
The other “expenses” relate to the operation of the property manager’s business. These operating expenses are time spent working on the business and this is funded by the percentage of the rent paid by the tenant, that the landlord charges the owner of the property. I do not consider the “expenses” amount to expenses incurred by the landlord. Having been compensated for the full rent for Mr Da Silveira’s entire tenancy, I consider it would be akin to “double-dipping” if I were to also award the landlord compensation for their usual operating costs. The claims for the other expenses are not proved.
Because Evergold Property Management Limited As Agent For Millie Erceg No.3 Trust Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5058192 — Rent arrears at 86 McLeod Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5058192 — Rent arrears at 86 McLeod Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

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?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions