What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5096808?

The tribunal order states: Kahurangi Rikky Motu must pay Ihome Property Management Limited Acting

How much money was awarded in case 5096808?

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 5096808?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5096808?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11466457-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5096808?

The tribunal order states: Kahurangi Rikky Motu must pay Ihome Property Management Limited Acting

How much money was awarded in case 5096808?

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 5096808?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5096808?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11466457-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

71 Oreil Avenue, West Harbour, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5096808 — Rent arrears

Order

Kahurangi Rikky Motu must pay Ihome Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Oreil Life 71 Limited $720.86 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The landlord’s application for compensation for the damaged carpet is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Pan of Ihome Property Management Limited attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The tenant has not communicated with the Tribunal as to why the tenant would not attend the hearing and the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
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 was seeking return of the bond. However, at the hearing, the landlord advised that the bond has since been paid to the landlord with the tenant’s permission. The claim for refund of the bond was withdrawn.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 10 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger which prove the amount owing.
The landlord also provided a ledger showing the unpaid water rates and supporting invoices.
These claims are proved.

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises (including the garden) reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides that the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord provided photographs showing that the tenant left a significant amount of rubbish at the premises and left the lawns untidy. The landlord has provided invoices showing that the amount charged for this work.
The landlord has also claimed for a heater. The landlord provided an invoice and messages with the tenant showing that it provided a heater to the tenant in July 2024. The landlord said that the tenants took the heater with them and that a new heater has been purchased. The landlord has provided the invoice for the original heater. I am satisfied that the heater was taken from the premises and that a new heater was purchased.
These claims are proved. The amounts ordered are inclusive of GST.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 tenancy agreement provides that the premises were not insured during the tenancy.
The landlord asserts that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to a lock and wall; b. Damage to a glass panel; c. Damage to the carpet.
The landlord has provided pre-tenancy inspection report which includes photographs and photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied that the damage to the lock, wall and glass panel was caused during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The claims for damages to the lock, wall and glass are proved. The sums ordered are inclusive of GST.
I accept that the carpet was damaged during the tenancy. However, I have not awarded compensation for the carpet because I am required to take 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.
The Inland Revenue in its General Depreciation Rates guidance (IR265, September 2020) states that carpets in residential rental properties have a lifespan of 8 years.
The landlord advised that the carpet was around 10 years old. Therefore, while I accept that the carpet was damaged during the tenancy and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage, I find that the carpet was due to be replaced and was of no value.
The claim for the damaged carpet is dismissed. Reimbursement of filing fee:
Ihome Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Oreil Life 71 Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5096808 — Rent arrears at 71 Oreil Avenue, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

Tenancy Tribunal case 5096808 — Rent arrears at 71 Oreil Avenue, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

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