What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5177971?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Saula Suwasuwa Navakaloman, Joleme Raiba and Rowan

How much money was awarded in case 5177971?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,136.63 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $258.06 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5177971?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5177971?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11747057-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5177971?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Saula Suwasuwa Navakaloman, Joleme Raiba and Rowan

How much money was awarded in case 5177971?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,136.63 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $258.06 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5177971?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5177971?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11747057-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

98 Heta Road, Highlands Park, New Plymouth 4312 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5177971 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5177971 — net $1,101.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 30.4.2025	$3,136.63	Rent arrears to 30.4.2025
Repairs: rangehood replacement and installation	$258.06	Repairs: rangehood replacement and installation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,101.69
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,101.69

The tenancy of Saula Suwasuwa Navakaloman, Joleme Raiba and Rowan Reihana Pokai at 98 Heta Road, Highlands Park, New Plymouth 4312 is terminated, and possession is granted to Success Realty Taranaki Limited T/A Bayleys As Agent For Qingsheng Li, at 11:59pm on Wednesday 30 April 2025.

Saula Suwasuwa Navakaloman, Joleme Raiba and Rowan Reihana Pokai must pay Success Realty Taranaki Limited T/A Bayleys As Agent For Qingsheng Li $1,101.69 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (3391131-015) to Success Realty Taranaki Limited T/A Bayleys As Agent For Qingsheng Li immediately.

Reasons

Ms Wilson and Ms Thennissen, representing the landlord, and the tenants, Mr Navakaloman, Mr Raiba and Mr Pokai, all attended the teleconference hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Mr Pokai clarified that he left the tenancy around Christmas 2024 but confirmed he did not provide written notice of this to the landlord. Thus, Mr Pokai remains jointly liable with the other tenants for any tenancy debt found.

Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 23 April 2025, the date of the hearing, which is $2,556.63. The tenants agreed this is likely the amount of rent arrears owing. Weekly rent is $580.00 so a further 7 days’, or one week’s rent @ $580.00 is payable by the tenants for rent from 24 April 2025 to 30 April 2025, for a sub-total of $580.00. Therefore, the tenants owe the landlord a total of $3,136.63 in rent to 30 April 2025, which is the end of the tenancy.

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.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

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. See section 49B(1) RTA.

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 landlord said the tenant, Mr Raiba, damaged the kitchen rangehood, which then had to be replaced. They said they conducted a routine inspection on 10 February 2025 and discovered black smoke on the kitchen wall and a damaged rangehood. Mr Raiba admitted he had been frying fish, got distracted by answering his phone and then an oil fire occurred on the stove, he poured water into it by mistake, so the fire flared up and damaged the rangehood. Mr Raiba said it had been an accident.

Whilst the landlord indicated they had insurance in a Variation of Tenancy Agreement dated 14 October 2024, the property manager said when the rangehood damage was discovered, the owner told them their insurance had lapsed. Therefore, there was no insurance available for the landlord to make an insurance claim about this.

The landlord provided photographs of the damage to the rangehood and walls in the kitchen and provided an invoice for $759.00 to supply and install a new rangehood. Mr Raiba agreed this was a reasonable amount claimed for this. I agree this is a reasonable cost to replace and install a new rangehood, before considering depreciation.

I find the damage to be careless damage on the tenant’s part. As such, the tenant is liable for the replacement cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the cap in section 49B RTA.

I have taken 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

No specific evidence was provided about the age of the rangehood. However, from the photographs of the rangehood before it was replaced, the rangehood appears to be more than 10 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that the life of a rangehood in a rental property is around 15 years. As such, I deduct the $759.00 paid to replace the rangehood by 66% for depreciation to an award of $258.06.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee

Because Success Realty Taranaki Limited T/A Bayleys As Agent For Qingsheng Li has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression

The landlord did not request name suppression. Only one of the tenants requested name suppression.

Section 95A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or party of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The tenant who requested name suppression did not provide any evidence, nor did any evidence that was provided or discussed, show why this tenant’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing his name. Therefore, I do not grant name suppression to the tenant who requested it, nor to any other party.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5177971 — net $1,101.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 30.4.2025	$3,136.63	Rent arrears to 30.4.2025
Repairs: rangehood replacement and installation	$258.06	Repairs: rangehood replacement and installation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,101.69
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,101.69

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (3391131-015) to Success Realty Taranaki Limited T/A Bayleys As Agent For Qingsheng Li immediately.

Reasons

Ms Wilson and Ms Thennissen, representing the landlord, and the tenants, Mr Navakaloman, Mr Raiba and Mr Pokai, all attended the teleconference hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

I find the damage to be careless damage on the tenant’s part. As such, the tenant is liable for the replacement cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the cap in section 49B RTA.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee

Because Success Realty Taranaki Limited T/A Bayleys As Agent For Qingsheng Li has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression

The landlord did not request name suppression. Only one of the tenants requested name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5177971 — Rent arrears at 98 Heta Road, Highlands Park, New Plymouth 4312

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5177971 — Rent arrears at 98 Heta Road, Highlands Park, New Plymouth 4312

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