What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5063088?

The tribunal order states: Maia Maria Nova Honetana must pay Burnham House (Scene One) Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5063088?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $370.00 awarded to landlord; Remove And Dispose Of Piano: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Remove Goods And Rubbish: $188.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,528.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5063088?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5063088?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11455607-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5063088?

The tribunal order states: Maia Maria Nova Honetana must pay Burnham House (Scene One) Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5063088?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $370.00 awarded to landlord; Remove And Dispose Of Piano: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Remove Goods And Rubbish: $188.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,528.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5063088?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5063088?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11455607-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1520, 2 Beach Road, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5063088 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5063088 — net $1,916.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 October 2024	$4,528.14	Rent arrears to 19 October 2024
Replace light bulbs, keys, swipe cards	$370.00	Replace light bulbs, keys, swipe cards
Remove and dispose of piano	$402.50	Remove and dispose of piano
Remove goods and rubbish	$188.75	Remove goods and rubbish
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,916.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,916.39

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Davis and Ms James represented the landlord in person. The tenant attended by phone.

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 no longer seeks termination and possession orders as it has taken possession of the premises and the parties both agree that the tenancy has ended.

There is no tenant cross application.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord agreed to waive the 28-day notice period the tenant was required to give to terminate the tenancy.

There were various email communications between the parties about the end date of the tenancy. The landlord believes the tenancy ended when it took possession on 16 November 2024, and it seeks rent arrears to that date.

The tenant considers that the tenancy ended on 17 October 2024, one of the dates mentioned in one of her emails.

That the tenant did not remove all her goods nor return all the keys does not mean that the tenancy continued. It simply means that she did not comply with all her statutory responsibilities when she vacated.

The date sequences are confusing, and they changed. One email (which the tenant said today was a typing error) referred to the move out date as 29 October 2024.

The tenant said in her email to the landlord dated 17 October ‘our move will be completed by 12pm 18/10/24’. The landlord responded by email on 17 October ‘Thank you for the confirmation of the vacate of 1520/2 Beach Road, Auckland Central’, provided the rent arrears figure for rent owed to that date, and concluded by saying ‘hope your shift goes easy’.

But then, the tenant sent an email on 18 October saying, ‘just updating that we finish our clean up and moving out the last of our things on Saturday by 5pm’. The Saturday was 19 October 2024.

I find that the tenancy ended on 19 October 2024. I have therefore awarded the landlord rent arrears to 19 October 2024 only. It has not proved a claim for rent arrears beyond that date. Claims accepted by the tenant

Ms Honetana accepted the landlord’s claims for relacing light bulbs, keys, and swipe cards; removing and disposing of a piano; and removing and disposing of goods and rubbish. I have allowed those claims (marked *) by consent.

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 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The landlord has claimed the repair cost of a section of carpet in a bedroom wardrobe that was mouldy due to a leak over time. The tenant cut out the affected area of carpet and underlay.

Where 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.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional See section 49B(1) RTA.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose.

Mr Davis and Ms James did not know whether the owner of the premises was insured for tenant damage. However, as the damage was intentional damage (Ms Honetana deliberately cut out the section of affected carpet) I need not know the insurance situation as the claim is not limited to the amount of the excess.

The issue the Tribunal must address is whether the carpet repair is required due to Ms Honetana’s intentional act of damage or whether it would have been required regardless due to the mould damage the result of the leaking over time.

There is no independent specialist evidence on this issue. However, the photographic evidence provided to the Tribunal shows that both the underlay and the carpet were damaged by mould.

I find it probable that the carpet and underlay in the wardrobe would have had to be replaced anyway regardless of whether Ms Honetana had cut it out. In other words, the need for the carpet patch was the result of flooding causing mould on the carpet and underlay. Mr Honetana’s intentional action did not add to what had already occurred in terms of damage.

I dismiss the claim for the carpet patch repair ($570.50). Result

The tenant will pay the landlord $5,516.39. The bond will be paid to the landlord. After the deduction of the bond the tenant must pay the landlord $1,916.39 which includes the filing fee on the mostly successful application.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5063088 — net $1,916.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 October 2024	$4,528.14	Rent arrears to 19 October 2024
Replace light bulbs, keys, swipe cards	$370.00	Replace light bulbs, keys, swipe cards
Remove and dispose of piano	$402.50	Remove and dispose of piano
Remove goods and rubbish	$188.75	Remove goods and rubbish
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,916.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,916.39

Order

Maia Maria Nova Honetana must pay Burnham House (Scene One) Limited $1,916.39 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 (5314292-010) to Burnham House (Scene One) Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Davis and Ms James represented the landlord in person. The tenant attended by phone.
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 no longer seeks termination and possession orders as it has taken possession of the premises and the parties both agree that the tenancy has ended.
There is no tenant cross application.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord agreed to waive the 28-day notice period the tenant was required to give to terminate the tenancy.
There were various email communications between the parties about the end date of the tenancy. The landlord believes the tenancy ended when it took possession on 16 November 2024, and it seeks rent arrears to that date.
The tenant considers that the tenancy ended on 17 October 2024, one of the dates mentioned in one of her emails.
That the tenant did not remove all her goods nor return all the keys does not mean that the tenancy continued. It simply means that she did not comply with all her statutory responsibilities when she vacated.
The date sequences are confusing, and they changed. One email (which the tenant said today was a typing error) referred to the move out date as 29 October 2024.
The tenant said in her email to the landlord dated 17 October ‘our move will be completed by 12pm 18/10/24’. The landlord responded by email on 17 October ‘Thank you for the confirmation of the vacate of 1520/2 Beach Road, Auckland Central’, provided the rent arrears figure for rent owed to that date, and concluded by saying ‘hope your shift goes easy’.
But then, the tenant sent an email on 18 October saying, ‘just updating that we finish our clean up and moving out the last of our things on Saturday by 5pm’. The Saturday was 19 October 2024.
I find that the tenancy ended on 19 October 2024. I have therefore awarded the landlord rent arrears to 19 October 2024 only. It has not proved a claim for rent arrears beyond that date. Claims accepted by the tenant
Ms Honetana accepted the landlord’s claims for relacing light bulbs, keys, and swipe cards; removing and disposing of a piano; and removing and disposing of goods and rubbish. I have allowed those claims (marked *) by consent.

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 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord has claimed the repair cost of a section of carpet in a bedroom wardrobe that was mouldy due to a leak over time. The tenant cut out the affected area of carpet and underlay.
Where 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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose.
Mr Davis and Ms James did not know whether the owner of the premises was insured for tenant damage. However, as the damage was intentional damage (Ms Honetana deliberately cut out the section of affected carpet) I need not know the insurance situation as the claim is not limited to the amount of the excess.
The issue the Tribunal must address is whether the carpet repair is required due to Ms Honetana’s intentional act of damage or whether it would have been required regardless due to the mould damage the result of the leaking over time.
There is no independent specialist evidence on this issue. However, the photographic evidence provided to the Tribunal shows that both the underlay and the carpet were damaged by mould.
I find it probable that the carpet and underlay in the wardrobe would have had to be replaced anyway regardless of whether Ms Honetana had cut it out. In other words, the need for the carpet patch was the result of flooding causing mould on the carpet and underlay. Mr Honetana’s intentional action did not add to what had already occurred in terms of damage.
I dismiss the claim for the carpet patch repair ($570.50). Result
The tenant will pay the landlord $5,516.39. The bond will be paid to the landlord. After the deduction of the bond the tenant must pay the landlord $1,916.39 which includes the filing fee on the mostly successful application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5063088 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1520, 2 Beach Road, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5063088 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1520, 2 Beach Road, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions