What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4301470?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case but no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4301470?

Cleaning: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Breach of Quiet Enjoym…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Enforcement Fee: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,835.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4301470?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4301470?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9228793-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4301470?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case but no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4301470?

Cleaning: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Breach of Quiet Enjoym…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Enforcement Fee: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,835.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4301470?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4301470?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9228793-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 2, 125 Sullivan Avenue, Woolston, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4301470 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4301470 — net $7,206.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 18 July 2021	$5,835.71		22. Weekly rent of $150 from 13 December 2019 to 2 August 2021 totals $12,835.71.
Cleaning	$900.00		Cleaning
Enforcement Fee	$200.00		Enforcement Fee
Exemplary Damages - Unlawful Purpose	$500.00		Exemplary Damages - Unlawful Purpose
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Breach of Quiet Enjoyment		$250.00	Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
Total award	$7,456.15	$250.00
Net award	$7,206.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,206.15

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case but no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Andrew Myers Auton must pay Glenn Warwick Ryman $7,206.15 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

These applications were heard over three days on 18 October 2022, 13 March 2023 and 25 May 2023. Mr Auton was represented by Counsel, Mr Allen. Mr Ryman was represented by Mr O’Brien.
This matter has a protracted history. Applications 4296992 and 4301470 were heard and determined in July 2021. They have been the subject of rehearing application and appeals. Those applications were referred back to the Tribunal for rehearing by the District Court, at the request of the parties. I approach the rehearing “de novo”; as if the case is being heard for the first time.
Application 4326664 is a new application by the landlord. It was submitted by Mr O’Brien as agent for Mr Ryman.
In each instance the applicant has the onus of establishing its claims to the required civil standard, on the balance of probabilities, and must provide the evidence necessary to prove its claims.
Rarely does the Tribunal encounter a tenancy or applications as disorganised as this. These applications have been made in the context of more complex disputes between the tenant and his family and Mr O’Brien and Mr Ryman. In this decision I only deal with matters relating to the tenancy and the parties’ applications to this Tribunal. For that reason, it is not necessary for me to refer to all the evidence and documentation submitted by the parties. However, I have reviewed all evidence presented. Tenant Application - 4296992
The tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages. Mr Auton alleged that the landlord had failed in its repair and maintenance obligations and interfered with his quiet enjoyment of the property.
The tenant did not establish its claim in relation to repairs and maintenance. The photographs provided by the landlord show that the premises were provided in a reasonable state of repair.
There is a dispute regarding the heat pump. Mr Auton says that the landlord failed to attend to repairs or replacement within a reasonable period. The landlord says that the heat pump had to be replaced because of damage caused by the tenant’s activities at the property. The landlord also said that the Mr Auton was refused access to allow work on the heat pump. Neither party established their claims in relation to the heat pump to the required standard.
The tenant also claimed that the landlord had interfered with his quiet enjoyment. Mr Auton played a video taken on his phone which shows a confrontation between him and Mr Ryman. It appears that the landlord knocked the phone from the tenant’s hand. That action amounts to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. However, the video also shows the tenant approaching the landlord aggressively and goading him. The tenant instigated the exchange.
The landlord also, improperly, served a trespass notice on the tenant rather than taking the correct steps to resolve the dispute or end the tenancy. That is also a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
Having regard to the tenant’s conduct and his role in phone video incident, I have awarded limited compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment of $250.00. Mr Auton was not blameless and can be seen to have initiated the confrontation.
Except for the award of compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment, I dismiss the tenant’s application. He did not prove any application for exemplary damages for unlawful acts by the landlord. Landlord Applications 4301470 & 4326664
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and exemplary damages. 1

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 18 July 2021. The landlord obtained possession on 2 August 2021.
The tenant is liable for rent until 2 August 2021. The landlord claimed rent arrears to that date of $15,060. The amount was calculated based on the tenancy starting on 9 December 2019 at a weekly rent of $300, less total payments made by Mr Auton and a Mr Farell (who lived at the property until March 2020).
Mr Auton maintains that the tenancy did not start until February 2020 and that his liability for rent was $150 per week.
The Landlord referred to text exchanges with Mr Auton in late 2019. The landlord also referred to a statutory declaration from Mr Farrell but did not call Mr Farrell to give evidence. I place little weight on the statutory declaration.
Mr Auton gave evidence that the tenancy was arranged to provide him with an address to satisfy bail conditions, and that it started in February 2020.
The contemporaneous text evidence supports the tenancy starting in December 2019. Mr Auton made is first payment for rent and the bond on 13 December 2019. I find that the tenancy started on 13 December 2019. 1 The Landlord’s original application included termination of the tenancy. An Order was made terminating the tenancy in July 2021 and was enforced on 2 August 2021. I did not rehear that aspect of the Landlord’s claim.
The evidence also shows that the landlord anticipated total rent for the premises of $300. The landlord says that it entered a joint and several tenancy with Mr Auton and Mr Farrell for total rent of $300 per week. Apparently, Mr Farrell was moved on from the property at Mr Auton’s request. The landlord says that Mr Auton became liable for the full $300 from March 2020, when Mr Farrell left.
There is evidence to suggest that Mr Auton was aware that total rent was $300 per week. However, the landlord did not formalise any agreement when Mr Farrell left. On balance, the landlord has failed to establish a concluded agreement with Mr Auton to pay weekly rent of $300 from late March 2020.
Weekly rent of $150 from 13 December 2019 to 2 August 2021 totals $12,835.71. The evidence establishes that Mr Auton made payments of $7,000 for rent. 2 That leaves a balance owing for rent arrears of $5,835.71.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord claimed $4,800 for cleaning costs on the basis that tenant left bio-hazards and other drug paraphernalia at the property.
The tenant claimed that the landlord’s photographs from the end of the tenancy were “staged” and did not accurately represent the condition of the property. Mr Auton’s partner, Ms Butters gave evidence of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, as did Mr O’Brien’s partner.
The evidence establishes that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. However, the landlord did not incur the costs claimed. Rather, Mr Ryman cleaned the property with some friends over 3 days. Having regard to the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, the amount of time Mr Ryman said it took to clean, applying a labour late of $25 per hour and considering similar awards by the Tribunal, I award cleaning costs of $900.

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 2 I have given Mr Auton the full benefit of the $4,000 paid to Mr O’Brien for rent in May 2020. Mr O’Brien was not authorised to withhold money he says that Mr Auton owed him for a burger. damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claimed that a range of damage occurred during the tenancy, including heat pump destroyed, carpet damaged, glass door broken, cupboard doors damaged. The landlord provided some photographs and evidence of quotes.
While I accept that it is likely that some damage occurred during the tenancy, the landlord did not establish the specific items claimed to the required standard. The landlord provided evidence from a business associate regarding the heat pump. In the context of this dispute and the relationships between various parties, I put little weight on written evidence when the person has not presented for cross examination or questioning by the Tribunal.
Overall, the landlord’s claims appear to be exaggerated and not supported by evidence of actual costs incurred. Some of the “invoices” have been had written by Mr Ryman in a receipt book, other costs are quotes for work not yet done (two years after the end of the tenancy).
The claims for damage and repair costs are dismissed. Unlawful Use of Premises
The landlord claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by cultivating cannabis.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is unlawful to cultivate cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Police executed a search warrant at the premises on 28 May 2020 and located a cannabis growing operation. Mr Auton was arrested and subsequently convicted.
He maintains that Mr Farrell was responsible for starting the cultivation at the property. Having regard to the Police summary of facts and Mr Auton’s subsequent conviction, I find that he used the premises for an unlawful purpose and has committed an unlawful act under the RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The cultivation of cannabis is an intentional or deliberate act. The landlord (or Mr O’Brien) was aware of the cannabis growing at the property from May 2020, at the latest. The application for exemplary damages was not made until after the tenancy had ended, more than a year later. That delay is relevant to the amount I intend to award. However, it is in the overall public interest to discourage rental properties being used for an unlawful purpose. In the circumstances, I award the landlord exemplary damages of $500. Enforcement Fee
The landlord claimed reimbursement of the $200 eviction fee paid to the Ministry of Justice following the termination of the tenancy.
The tenant seemed to suggest that the landlord was not entitled to reimbursement because there was confusion around enforcement. In particular, the bailiff acted on the termination and possession order after a stay had been granted.
At the time Mr O’Brien paid the eviction fee, he had a valid order capable of enforcement. Mr Auton had failed to leave the property and Mr O’Brien was entitled to apply for eviction. He is also entitled to reimbursement of the fee paid.
As the landlord established a claim for rent arrears, I award reimbursement of that filing fee.
Overall, I do not consider that either party has been substantially successful in these proceedings, so I make no orders for suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4301470 — net $7,206.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 18 July 2021	$5,835.71		22. Weekly rent of $150 from 13 December 2019 to 2 August 2021 totals $12,835.71.
Cleaning	$900.00		Cleaning
Enforcement Fee	$200.00		Enforcement Fee
Exemplary Damages - Unlawful Purpose	$500.00		Exemplary Damages - Unlawful Purpose
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Breach of Quiet Enjoyment		$250.00	Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
Total award	$7,456.15	$250.00
Net award	$7,206.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,206.15

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case but no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Andrew Myers Auton must pay Glenn Warwick Ryman $7,206.15 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

These applications were heard over three days on 18 October 2022, 13 March 2023 and 25 May 2023. Mr Auton was represented by Counsel, Mr Allen. Mr Ryman was represented by Mr O’Brien.
This matter has a protracted history. Applications 4296992 and 4301470 were heard and determined in July 2021. They have been the subject of rehearing application and appeals. Those applications were referred back to the Tribunal for rehearing by the District Court, at the request of the parties. I approach the rehearing “de novo”; as if the case is being heard for the first time.
Application 4326664 is a new application by the landlord. It was submitted by Mr O’Brien as agent for Mr Ryman.
In each instance the applicant has the onus of establishing its claims to the required civil standard, on the balance of probabilities, and must provide the evidence necessary to prove its claims.
Rarely does the Tribunal encounter a tenancy or applications as disorganised as this. These applications have been made in the context of more complex disputes between the tenant and his family and Mr O’Brien and Mr Ryman. In this decision I only deal with matters relating to the tenancy and the parties’ applications to this Tribunal. For that reason, it is not necessary for me to refer to all the evidence and documentation submitted by the parties. However, I have reviewed all evidence presented. Tenant Application - 4296992
The tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages. Mr Auton alleged that the landlord had failed in its repair and maintenance obligations and interfered with his quiet enjoyment of the property.
The tenant did not establish its claim in relation to repairs and maintenance. The photographs provided by the landlord show that the premises were provided in a reasonable state of repair.
There is a dispute regarding the heat pump. Mr Auton says that the landlord failed to attend to repairs or replacement within a reasonable period. The landlord says that the heat pump had to be replaced because of damage caused by the tenant’s activities at the property. The landlord also said that the Mr Auton was refused access to allow work on the heat pump. Neither party established their claims in relation to the heat pump to the required standard.
The tenant also claimed that the landlord had interfered with his quiet enjoyment. Mr Auton played a video taken on his phone which shows a confrontation between him and Mr Ryman. It appears that the landlord knocked the phone from the tenant’s hand. That action amounts to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. However, the video also shows the tenant approaching the landlord aggressively and goading him. The tenant instigated the exchange.
The landlord also, improperly, served a trespass notice on the tenant rather than taking the correct steps to resolve the dispute or end the tenancy. That is also a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
Having regard to the tenant’s conduct and his role in phone video incident, I have awarded limited compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment of $250.00. Mr Auton was not blameless and can be seen to have initiated the confrontation.
Except for the award of compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment, I dismiss the tenant’s application. He did not prove any application for exemplary damages for unlawful acts by the landlord. Landlord Applications 4301470 & 4326664
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and exemplary damages. 1

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 18 July 2021. The landlord obtained possession on 2 August 2021.
The tenant is liable for rent until 2 August 2021. The landlord claimed rent arrears to that date of $15,060. The amount was calculated based on the tenancy starting on 9 December 2019 at a weekly rent of $300, less total payments made by Mr Auton and a Mr Farell (who lived at the property until March 2020).
Mr Auton maintains that the tenancy did not start until February 2020 and that his liability for rent was $150 per week.
The Landlord referred to text exchanges with Mr Auton in late 2019. The landlord also referred to a statutory declaration from Mr Farrell but did not call Mr Farrell to give evidence. I place little weight on the statutory declaration.
Mr Auton gave evidence that the tenancy was arranged to provide him with an address to satisfy bail conditions, and that it started in February 2020.
The contemporaneous text evidence supports the tenancy starting in December 2019. Mr Auton made is first payment for rent and the bond on 13 December 2019. I find that the tenancy started on 13 December 2019. 1 The Landlord’s original application included termination of the tenancy. An Order was made terminating the tenancy in July 2021 and was enforced on 2 August 2021. I did not rehear that aspect of the Landlord’s claim.
The evidence also shows that the landlord anticipated total rent for the premises of $300. The landlord says that it entered a joint and several tenancy with Mr Auton and Mr Farrell for total rent of $300 per week. Apparently, Mr Farrell was moved on from the property at Mr Auton’s request. The landlord says that Mr Auton became liable for the full $300 from March 2020, when Mr Farrell left.
There is evidence to suggest that Mr Auton was aware that total rent was $300 per week. However, the landlord did not formalise any agreement when Mr Farrell left. On balance, the landlord has failed to establish a concluded agreement with Mr Auton to pay weekly rent of $300 from late March 2020.
Weekly rent of $150 from 13 December 2019 to 2 August 2021 totals $12,835.71. The evidence establishes that Mr Auton made payments of $7,000 for rent. 2 That leaves a balance owing for rent arrears of $5,835.71.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord claimed $4,800 for cleaning costs on the basis that tenant left bio-hazards and other drug paraphernalia at the property.
The tenant claimed that the landlord’s photographs from the end of the tenancy were “staged” and did not accurately represent the condition of the property. Mr Auton’s partner, Ms Butters gave evidence of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, as did Mr O’Brien’s partner.
The evidence establishes that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. However, the landlord did not incur the costs claimed. Rather, Mr Ryman cleaned the property with some friends over 3 days. Having regard to the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, the amount of time Mr Ryman said it took to clean, applying a labour late of $25 per hour and considering similar awards by the Tribunal, I award cleaning costs of $900.

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 2 I have given Mr Auton the full benefit of the $4,000 paid to Mr O’Brien for rent in May 2020. Mr O’Brien was not authorised to withhold money he says that Mr Auton owed him for a burger. damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claimed that a range of damage occurred during the tenancy, including heat pump destroyed, carpet damaged, glass door broken, cupboard doors damaged. The landlord provided some photographs and evidence of quotes.
While I accept that it is likely that some damage occurred during the tenancy, the landlord did not establish the specific items claimed to the required standard. The landlord provided evidence from a business associate regarding the heat pump. In the context of this dispute and the relationships between various parties, I put little weight on written evidence when the person has not presented for cross examination or questioning by the Tribunal.
Overall, the landlord’s claims appear to be exaggerated and not supported by evidence of actual costs incurred. Some of the “invoices” have been had written by Mr Ryman in a receipt book, other costs are quotes for work not yet done (two years after the end of the tenancy).
The claims for damage and repair costs are dismissed. Unlawful Use of Premises
The landlord claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by cultivating cannabis.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is unlawful to cultivate cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Police executed a search warrant at the premises on 28 May 2020 and located a cannabis growing operation. Mr Auton was arrested and subsequently convicted.
He maintains that Mr Farrell was responsible for starting the cultivation at the property. Having regard to the Police summary of facts and Mr Auton’s subsequent conviction, I find that he used the premises for an unlawful purpose and has committed an unlawful act under the RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The cultivation of cannabis is an intentional or deliberate act. The landlord (or Mr O’Brien) was aware of the cannabis growing at the property from May 2020, at the latest. The application for exemplary damages was not made until after the tenancy had ended, more than a year later. That delay is relevant to the amount I intend to award. However, it is in the overall public interest to discourage rental properties being used for an unlawful purpose. In the circumstances, I award the landlord exemplary damages of $500. Enforcement Fee
The landlord claimed reimbursement of the $200 eviction fee paid to the Ministry of Justice following the termination of the tenancy.
The tenant seemed to suggest that the landlord was not entitled to reimbursement because there was confusion around enforcement. In particular, the bailiff acted on the termination and possession order after a stay had been granted.
At the time Mr O’Brien paid the eviction fee, he had a valid order capable of enforcement. Mr Auton had failed to leave the property and Mr O’Brien was entitled to apply for eviction. He is also entitled to reimbursement of the fee paid.
As the landlord established a claim for rent arrears, I award reimbursement of that filing fee.
Overall, I do not consider that either party has been substantially successful in these proceedings, so I make no orders for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4301470 — Rent arrears at Flat 2, 125 Sullivan Avenue, Woolston, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4301470 — Rent arrears at Flat 2, 125 Sullivan Avenue, Woolston, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Frequently asked questions