What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4486392 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4486392?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Door Lock: $85.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,228.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $359.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4486392?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4486392?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9361696-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4486392 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4486392?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Door Lock: $85.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,228.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $359.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4486392?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4486392?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9361696-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

80 Blackbridge Road, Dairy Flat, RD 4, Auckland 0794 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4486392 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4486392 — net $8,043.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23 November 2023	$7,228.57	Rent arrears to 23 November 2023
Rubbish removal: Skip bin hire	$359.00	Rubbish removal: Skip bin hire
Cleaning: Contribution	$350.00	Cleaning: Contribution
Door lock	$85.00	Door lock
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,043.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,043.01

[The landlord’s representative/s] attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.

There was no appearance by the tenant. I am satisfied that the tenant had notice of the time and date of the hearing, therefore the hearing proceeded in his absence.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy. DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears to 23 November 2023$7,228.57 Rubbish removal: Skip bin hire$359.00 Cleaning: Contribution$350.00 Door lock$85.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$8,043.01

This tenancy commenced on 30 May 2020 and ended on 23 November 2022. Introduction and Approach in the Tribunal

At the outset of the hearing, I raised a few issues with the landlord regarding some of the terms in the Tenancy Agreement.

There were a number of terms that were inconsistent with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) and thus likely to be unenforceable.

These included references to certain parts of the property being rented “as is” with the landlord not responsible for maintenance. There were also provisions for the tenant to maintain the driveway, grounds, fences and water pump.

As I explained to the landlord, although this is a rural property it is nevertheless a residential tenancy. It is not a commercial lease for a working farm. Section 11 of the Act provides that where terms are inconsistent with the Act they will be of no effect.

Property maintenance is a landlord responsibility – see section 45 of the Act. It is not possible to contract out of this responsibility.

I state the above merely for context because it affects some of the claims made by the landlord.

Turning now to those claims.

I begin by I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlord) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.

This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.

As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

For the sake of brevity, I may not have referred to all the evidence presented; however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered Rent Arrears

The landlord had originally provided a rent summary that was incomplete. Following the end of the hearing she provided an updated summary.

That shows that the arrears owing at the end of the tenancy are $7,228.57. This balance takes into account the fact that the bond has already been refunded to the landlord.

I am satisfied this amount is owing and order accordingly. Compensation

The remaining claims relate to compensation for breaches of tenant obligations. Specifically, the landlord is claiming for: • Cleaning $1713.50 • Cost of skip bin to remove rubbish - $359 • 10 lightbulbs - $85 • Unblocking basin in the sleepout - $60 • Replacing damaged front door lock - $85

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) of the Act). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) of the Act). Tenants are generally responsible for replacing standard lightbulbs

In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.

The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.

The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994). Cleaning

In this case, the landlord provided a number of photographs said to be showing areas where cleaning was not reasonable.

As is often the case, these focused only on certain areas and did not provide a general overview of the premises. Much of the focus of those photos was on areas such as the sleepout and barn which were areas said to have been provided on an “as is” basis with the landlord denying responsibility for any maintenance.

After the hearing, the landlord also produced a routine inspection report and photos.

It was very difficult to assess whether or not overall the premises had been left reasonably clean and tidy. I accept that there were certain areas in the barn and the sleepouts that did not appear to be cleaned but there was a paucity of photographs showing the condition of those areas before the tenancy commenced.

Standing back and looking at things in the round, I am prepared to accept that not all areas were left reasonably clean and tidy. However, that does not mean that the tenant is liable for all the cleaning undertaken, for which the landlord is claiming $1,713.50. The main house itself did appear to be reasonably clean and tidy; some of the outbuildings were not.

I consider therefore that it is reasonable for the tenant to contribute $350.00 to the cleaning costs.

That amount is ordered accordingly. Rubbish

I accept that the tenant left a reasonable amount of rubbish at the premises that the landlord was required to remove and this involved hiring a skip bin.

The invoice provided for the skip bin is $359 and I order that amount to be paid by the tenant. Lightbulbs

The landlord said that there were ten lightbulbs missing at the end of the tenancy. However, she did not have evidence as to which lightbulbs were missing in particular.

I queried the landlord because the ingoing inspection report also referred to missing lightbulbs in some areas.

The landlord claimed that the missing lightbulbs were different from the ones missing at the start of the tenancy.

Bearing in mind the burden is on the landlord to establish the claim, I am not satisfied there is sufficient evidence to show that the tenant is liable for replacing these lightbulbs.

That claim is accordingly dismissed. Unblocking a Basin

The landlord says that the tenant is liable for the cost of a plumber to unblock a basin in one of the sleepouts.

Property maintenance is generally a landlord responsibility. Unblocking basins or drains are only a tenant responsibility if there is evidence to show that the tenant has done something to cause the blockage.

The landlord was unable to say how or why the basin was blocked and had no evidence as to the cause.

I am not satisfied that this claim has been established and it is therefore dismissed. Door Lock

The landlord claims for $85 to replace the front door lock. She says this was required because the tenant did not return all the keys.

I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for this cost and order that he pay the landlord $85.00. Suppression and Filing Fee

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties or is justified because of the parties conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

In this case, the landlord has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. As there are no countervailing reasons not to do so, I therefore grant suppression of their name and identifying details.

As the landlord has substantially succeeded in the proceedings, I also reimburse the filing fee. J R Smith 31 August 2023

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4486392 — net $8,043.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23 November 2023	$7,228.57	Rent arrears to 23 November 2023
Rubbish removal: Skip bin hire	$359.00	Rubbish removal: Skip bin hire
Cleaning: Contribution	$350.00	Cleaning: Contribution
Door lock	$85.00	Door lock
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,043.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,043.01

[The landlord’s representative/s] attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.

There was no appearance by the tenant. I am satisfied that the tenant had notice of the time and date of the hearing, therefore the hearing proceeded in his absence.

This tenancy commenced on 30 May 2020 and ended on 23 November 2022. Introduction and Approach in the Tribunal

At the outset of the hearing, I raised a few issues with the landlord regarding some of the terms in the Tenancy Agreement.

There were a number of terms that were inconsistent with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) and thus likely to be unenforceable.

Property maintenance is a landlord responsibility – see section 45 of the Act. It is not possible to contract out of this responsibility.

I state the above merely for context because it affects some of the claims made by the landlord.

Turning now to those claims.

For the sake of brevity, I may not have referred to all the evidence presented; however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered Rent Arrears

The landlord had originally provided a rent summary that was incomplete. Following the end of the hearing she provided an updated summary.

That shows that the arrears owing at the end of the tenancy are $7,228.57. This balance takes into account the fact that the bond has already been refunded to the landlord.

I am satisfied this amount is owing and order accordingly. Compensation

In this case, the landlord provided a number of photographs said to be showing areas where cleaning was not reasonable.

After the hearing, the landlord also produced a routine inspection report and photos.

I consider therefore that it is reasonable for the tenant to contribute $350.00 to the cleaning costs.

That amount is ordered accordingly. Rubbish

I accept that the tenant left a reasonable amount of rubbish at the premises that the landlord was required to remove and this involved hiring a skip bin.

The invoice provided for the skip bin is $359 and I order that amount to be paid by the tenant. Lightbulbs

The landlord said that there were ten lightbulbs missing at the end of the tenancy. However, she did not have evidence as to which lightbulbs were missing in particular.

I queried the landlord because the ingoing inspection report also referred to missing lightbulbs in some areas.

The landlord claimed that the missing lightbulbs were different from the ones missing at the start of the tenancy.

Bearing in mind the burden is on the landlord to establish the claim, I am not satisfied there is sufficient evidence to show that the tenant is liable for replacing these lightbulbs.

That claim is accordingly dismissed. Unblocking a Basin

The landlord says that the tenant is liable for the cost of a plumber to unblock a basin in one of the sleepouts.

The landlord was unable to say how or why the basin was blocked and had no evidence as to the cause.

I am not satisfied that this claim has been established and it is therefore dismissed. Door Lock

The landlord claims for $85 to replace the front door lock. She says this was required because the tenant did not return all the keys.

I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for this cost and order that he pay the landlord $85.00. Suppression and Filing Fee

In this case, the landlord has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. As there are no countervailing reasons not to do so, I therefore grant suppression of their name and identifying details.

As the landlord has substantially succeeded in the proceedings, I also reimburse the filing fee. J R Smith 31 August 2023

Tenancy Tribunal case 4486392 — Rent arrears at 80 Blackbridge Road, Dairy Flat, RD 4, Auckland 0794

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4486392 — Rent arrears at 80 Blackbridge Road, Dairy Flat, RD 4, Auckland 0794

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions