What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4327223?

The tribunal order states: Kiranpreet Kaur’s request for an adjournment is declined.

How much money was awarded in case 4327223?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawn Mowing: $192.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,230.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $204.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4327223?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4327223?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10086483-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4327223?

The tribunal order states: Kiranpreet Kaur’s request for an adjournment is declined.

How much money was awarded in case 4327223?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawn Mowing: $192.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,230.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $204.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4327223?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4327223?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10086483-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

80 Hillcrest Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4327223 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4327223 — net $2,347.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,230.00	Rent arrears
Water rates (fixed charges deducted	$204.71	Water rates (fixed charges deducted
Rubbish removal	$300.00	Rubbish removal
Lawn mowing	$192.00	Lawn mowing
Repair hole in living room wall	$150.00	Repair hole in living room wall
Repair broken glass in living room door (insurance excess	$250.00	Repair broken glass in living room door (insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,347.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,347.15

Order

Kiranpreet Kaur’s request for an adjournment is declined.
Kiranpreet Kaur and Harpal Singh’s application (application 4327233) is dismissed.
Kiranpreet Kaur and Harpal Singh must pay Balbir Singh $2,347.15 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

A hearing was held on 18 December 2023. Mr Balbir Singh (the landlord) attended the hearing, but Ms Kiranpreet Kaur and Mr Harpal Singh (the tenants) did not attend. Application for an adjournment
On the morning of the hearing, Ms Harpreet Kaur advised that she had a medical emergency and would not be attending the hearing.
I asked the landlord whether he consented to this late request for an adjournment. He did not.
Any application for adjournment involves balancing the conflicting interests of the parties, and the substantial merits and justice of the case.
This dispute is longstanding. The tenants filed an application with the Tribunal on 23 January 2022 claiming compensation of $10,000.00, exemplary damages for various breaches of the landlord’s obligations and refund of the bond.
The landlord filed a cross application on 2 February 2022 for rent arrears, unpaid water rates, and compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing had been adjourned 6 times previously on 4 April 2022, 25 May 2022, 11 July 2022, 12 September 2022, 17 November 2022, and 7 September 2023.
In this case, the landlord has been seriously inconvenienced by the very late application for adjournment. The Tribunal has also set aside a whole hearing day to hear and resolve this matter. There are significant resources involved when scheduling a hearing. Adjournments are only to be granted for compelling reasons, and not just at the convenience of the parties or because an adjournment had been previously afforded to the other party.
I also note that in the order dated 7 September 2023, I stated that the tenants’ application did not properly set out the claims sought with sufficient particularity and asked the tenants to: “...prepare a written statement giving a chronology of events, a description of the issues and details of the ways in which the landlord has breached his obligations and responsibilities under the Tenancy Agreement and/or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 in relation to the following claims: • Rooms paid rent for but couldn’t be used, • Waste of food because of lizzards, • Health and safety issue, • Breaching privacy and entering their rooms,” 4327223, 43280793
I also asked the tenants to detail when they “first brought the above issues to the landlord's attention (and how ie. verbally, be email or txt etc), and what steps, if any, were taken by the landlord and when”.
I directed that if either party intended to produce any additional documents at the next hearing, they had to e-mail a copy to the Tribunal and other party at least 10 days before the next hearing day. The tenants did not submit any further information despite being requested by the Tribunal to do so.
Despite the limitations Ms Kaur has advised the Tribunal of, she has not provided any evidence from a medical practitioner or medical certificate to support her request for an adjournment. Nor was there any explanation why her husband and co-tenant could not attend.
Given the issues outlined above, and that this dispute has been longstanding with numerous previous adjournments, I did not consider it was in line with justice to delay the matter further. Accordingly, the application for an adjournment was dismissed and I proceeded to hear the matter in tenants’ absence. The tenants’ application
The tenants have an obligation to prove their claim. As they did not attend the hearing, they have not proven their claim to the required standard, and it is therefore dismissed. The landlord’s application
In proving the claims, the landlord must adduce evidence that “on the balance of probabilities” persuades the Tribunal that what is said is correct.
I have taken into account the responses from Ms Kaur who attended for the tenants at the previous hearing.
Where there was any conflict in the evidence, I found the landlord’s evidence more reliable than the tenant’s. I found the landlord provided straightforward and credible responses. In contrast, the tenant’s evidence was accusatory in tone and lacked detail.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

A tenant must pay rent as and when it falls due and is responsible for water charges incurred during the tenancy on the basis of consumption. See sections 40 and 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)). 4327223, 43280794
The tenancy started on 6 June 2021 and ended on 30 January 2022. The landlord provided rent records (including bank records) and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy.
I note the tenant disputed the landlord’s claim for rent arrears but did not provide any evidence to support her view. I also note the tenant had argued that they had paid a bond. This is not consistent with the tenancy agreement which does not record that a bond was required.

Did the tenants 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) RTA.
The landlord provided photographs of rubbish that the tenant left near the gate and at the front of the house including an old sofa, baby pram and other items belonging to the tenant. The landlord claimed $300.00 for rubbish removal.
The tenant said the rubbish was not theirs. She also accused the landlord of inaccurate use of photographs alleging that some of the photographs produced showed the mess created by the landlord’s family when they threw all her belongings out of the garage without her permissions.
I prefer the landlord’s evidence. I find the tenant did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy.
The amount ordered is proved.

Are the tenants liable for lawn mowing costs?

The tenants were obliged to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy, which included mowing the lawns. See section 40(1)(c) RTA.
The landlord says he agreed with the tenant’s husband that he would mow the lawn and they would be charged a fee. He claimed lawn mowing costs of $192.00 for the last 6 months which he says the tenants have refused to pay.
In response, the tenant said there was no such agreement and therefore they were not liable for any lawn mowing costs. Her husband did not attend the hearing to give direct evidence to refute the landlord’s claim.
I prefer the landlord’s evidence. I find the tenants liable for lawn mowing costs and award lawn mowing costs for 6 months of $192.00 which I consider reasonable. 4327223, 43280795

Are the tenants 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.
The landlord must provide sufficient evidence to discharge their burden of proof for each claim made.
The landlord claimed $250.00 being the insurance excess for repair of the glass in the living room door which he says was caused by the tenant’s husband. I find this damage was caused during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord claimed $150.00 to repair the hole in the living room wall behind the door. The tenant disputed the claim and said the hole in the wall was present at the start of the tenancy. No issue was noted in the property inspection report contained in the Tenancy Agreement which was signed by both parties. I therefore accept this damage was caused during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation but do not consider these concepts applicable here. Filing fee
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the other party to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4327223 — net $2,347.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,230.00	Rent arrears
Water rates (fixed charges deducted	$204.71	Water rates (fixed charges deducted
Rubbish removal	$300.00	Rubbish removal
Lawn mowing	$192.00	Lawn mowing
Repair hole in living room wall	$150.00	Repair hole in living room wall
Repair broken glass in living room door (insurance excess	$250.00	Repair broken glass in living room door (insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,347.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,347.15

Order

Kiranpreet Kaur’s request for an adjournment is declined.
Kiranpreet Kaur and Harpal Singh’s application (application 4327233) is dismissed.
Kiranpreet Kaur and Harpal Singh must pay Balbir Singh $2,347.15 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

A hearing was held on 18 December 2023. Mr Balbir Singh (the landlord) attended the hearing, but Ms Kiranpreet Kaur and Mr Harpal Singh (the tenants) did not attend. Application for an adjournment
On the morning of the hearing, Ms Harpreet Kaur advised that she had a medical emergency and would not be attending the hearing.
I asked the landlord whether he consented to this late request for an adjournment. He did not.
Any application for adjournment involves balancing the conflicting interests of the parties, and the substantial merits and justice of the case.
This dispute is longstanding. The tenants filed an application with the Tribunal on 23 January 2022 claiming compensation of $10,000.00, exemplary damages for various breaches of the landlord’s obligations and refund of the bond.
The landlord filed a cross application on 2 February 2022 for rent arrears, unpaid water rates, and compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing had been adjourned 6 times previously on 4 April 2022, 25 May 2022, 11 July 2022, 12 September 2022, 17 November 2022, and 7 September 2023.
In this case, the landlord has been seriously inconvenienced by the very late application for adjournment. The Tribunal has also set aside a whole hearing day to hear and resolve this matter. There are significant resources involved when scheduling a hearing. Adjournments are only to be granted for compelling reasons, and not just at the convenience of the parties or because an adjournment had been previously afforded to the other party.
I also note that in the order dated 7 September 2023, I stated that the tenants’ application did not properly set out the claims sought with sufficient particularity and asked the tenants to: “...prepare a written statement giving a chronology of events, a description of the issues and details of the ways in which the landlord has breached his obligations and responsibilities under the Tenancy Agreement and/or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 in relation to the following claims: • Rooms paid rent for but couldn’t be used, • Waste of food because of lizzards, • Health and safety issue, • Breaching privacy and entering their rooms,” 4327223, 43280793
I also asked the tenants to detail when they “first brought the above issues to the landlord's attention (and how ie. verbally, be email or txt etc), and what steps, if any, were taken by the landlord and when”.
I directed that if either party intended to produce any additional documents at the next hearing, they had to e-mail a copy to the Tribunal and other party at least 10 days before the next hearing day. The tenants did not submit any further information despite being requested by the Tribunal to do so.
Despite the limitations Ms Kaur has advised the Tribunal of, she has not provided any evidence from a medical practitioner or medical certificate to support her request for an adjournment. Nor was there any explanation why her husband and co-tenant could not attend.
Given the issues outlined above, and that this dispute has been longstanding with numerous previous adjournments, I did not consider it was in line with justice to delay the matter further. Accordingly, the application for an adjournment was dismissed and I proceeded to hear the matter in tenants’ absence. The tenants’ application
The tenants have an obligation to prove their claim. As they did not attend the hearing, they have not proven their claim to the required standard, and it is therefore dismissed. The landlord’s application
In proving the claims, the landlord must adduce evidence that “on the balance of probabilities” persuades the Tribunal that what is said is correct.
I have taken into account the responses from Ms Kaur who attended for the tenants at the previous hearing.
Where there was any conflict in the evidence, I found the landlord’s evidence more reliable than the tenant’s. I found the landlord provided straightforward and credible responses. In contrast, the tenant’s evidence was accusatory in tone and lacked detail.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

A tenant must pay rent as and when it falls due and is responsible for water charges incurred during the tenancy on the basis of consumption. See sections 40 and 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)). 4327223, 43280794
The tenancy started on 6 June 2021 and ended on 30 January 2022. The landlord provided rent records (including bank records) and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy.
I note the tenant disputed the landlord’s claim for rent arrears but did not provide any evidence to support her view. I also note the tenant had argued that they had paid a bond. This is not consistent with the tenancy agreement which does not record that a bond was required.

Did the tenants 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) RTA.
The landlord provided photographs of rubbish that the tenant left near the gate and at the front of the house including an old sofa, baby pram and other items belonging to the tenant. The landlord claimed $300.00 for rubbish removal.
The tenant said the rubbish was not theirs. She also accused the landlord of inaccurate use of photographs alleging that some of the photographs produced showed the mess created by the landlord’s family when they threw all her belongings out of the garage without her permissions.
I prefer the landlord’s evidence. I find the tenant did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy.
The amount ordered is proved.

Are the tenants liable for lawn mowing costs?

The tenants were obliged to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy, which included mowing the lawns. See section 40(1)(c) RTA.
The landlord says he agreed with the tenant’s husband that he would mow the lawn and they would be charged a fee. He claimed lawn mowing costs of $192.00 for the last 6 months which he says the tenants have refused to pay.
In response, the tenant said there was no such agreement and therefore they were not liable for any lawn mowing costs. Her husband did not attend the hearing to give direct evidence to refute the landlord’s claim.
I prefer the landlord’s evidence. I find the tenants liable for lawn mowing costs and award lawn mowing costs for 6 months of $192.00 which I consider reasonable. 4327223, 43280795

Are the tenants 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.
The landlord must provide sufficient evidence to discharge their burden of proof for each claim made.
The landlord claimed $250.00 being the insurance excess for repair of the glass in the living room door which he says was caused by the tenant’s husband. I find this damage was caused during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord claimed $150.00 to repair the hole in the living room wall behind the door. The tenant disputed the claim and said the hole in the wall was present at the start of the tenancy. No issue was noted in the property inspection report contained in the Tenancy Agreement which was signed by both parties. I therefore accept this damage was caused during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation but do not consider these concepts applicable here. Filing fee
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the other party to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4327223 — Rent arrears at 80 Hillcrest Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4327223 — Rent arrears at 80 Hillcrest Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Are the tenants liable for lawn mowing costs?

Are the tenants 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 and water rates?

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

Are the tenants liable for lawn mowing costs?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions