What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4500841?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4500841?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $610.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $17.27 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4500841?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4500841?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9359469-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4500841?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4500841?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $610.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $17.27 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4500841?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4500841?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9359469-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

63A Glamorgan Drive, Torbay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4500841 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4500841. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$610.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$17.27	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$400.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$400.00	Lawns and Garden work

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Lindsay Helen Janine Tickner must pay Zhen Gang Xu $1,447.71 immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5322735-008) to Jason David Lee immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant Jason David Lee also attended and was supported during the hearing by his sister.
There was no appearance by Lindsay Tickner.
This decision should also be read in conjunction with an earlier Tenancy Tribunal Order (4426405) dated 10 January 2023.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
This tenancy commenced in July 2019. Jason Lee was the sole tenant named on the tenancy agreement. He paid the full bond. This was originally a fixed term tenancy for 12 months ending 10 July 2020.
The parties entered into a new fixed term for a further 12 months commencing 8 October 2021 and ending 8 September 2022. Again, the agreement was only between the landlord and Jason Lee. After that, the tenancy reverted to a periodic tenancy.
On 7 January 2022 Jason Lee was involved in a serious accident. This resulted in multiple brain bleeds and skull fractures. He was in an induced coma and in the ICU for an extended period of time. He then suffered a stroke and has been in rehabilitative care for lengthy periods. He has not lived at the tenancy address since the time of the accident; he has either been hospitalised, at a rehabilitation facility or living with his sister Rochelle. As a result of these brain injuries Jason Lee has some cognitive impairment and is unable to take care of himself.
On 19 and 21 January 2022 a change of tenant form was completed and signed by the landlord and Ms Tickner, adding Ms Tickner to the tenancy. The sole tenant Jason Lee was in a coma and therefore unaware of what was happening. Jason Lee (assisted by his sister) therefore sent an email to Mr Zhang on 28 September 2022 giving notice to terminate the tenancy. In the circumstances, Mr Zhang waived the normal notice period of 28 days and instead allowed Mr Lee to give 14 days’ notice.
The tenancy therefore ended on 12 October 2022.
Ms Tickner however, failed to vacate the property on 12 October 2022 when the tenancy ended. On 19 October 2022 she sent a further email to Mr Zhang advising that “I don’t agree to ending the tenancy and you need everyone OK”. Mr Zhang responded that he had already accepted the notice ending the tenancy and requested her to vacate the property and return the keys. Ms Tickner stayed on.
The earlier Order from this Tribunal granted possession to the landlord as at 12 January 2023. At about 9:30 am on 13 January 2023, the landlord arrived at the address and found that there were still people living in it. He spoke to an unknown male who advised him that Lindsay had rented out the room to him. The landlord asked him to move out immediately.
On the morning of 15 January 2023, the unknown male was still living at the address when the landlord visited again. He called the police. The police gave them an eviction order with one day to move out.
The landlord returned on the morning of 17 January 2023 and found no one living in the house. A red Mazda motor vehicle had been left in the driveway of the property. The landlord stated that the outside area of the property was full of rubbish and weeds were overgrown. The inside of the house was also full of rubbish and was also badly damaged. The landlord’s application

How much is owed for rent and water charges?

The tenant Ms Tickner remained in possession until 17 January 2023. The landlord provided rent and water records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted the landlord’s rent ledger I am satisfied that Ms Tickner is responsible for the outstanding rent and water arrears.
The landlord also seeks compensation for rubbish removal, lawn mowing, key replacement, heat pump remote control replacement and compensation for damage.
Unfortunately for the landlord, very little evidence was presented in support of these claims. I have sighted two ‘quotes’ from an unknown source in respect of lawnmowing and rubbish removal. These quotes were not in the form that one would expect in these circumstances. Actual expense claims should have been filed in support, especially given the significant amounts being claimed. The landlord stated that he took photographs on 16 January 2023 of the rubbish and junk left behind. Mr Lee’s sister also stated during the hearing that she hired a jumbo bin and went to the property in early October 2022 and removed rubbish which Mr Lee would have been liable for.
The landlord has also failed to provide evidence in support of replacement keys and heat pump remote control replacement.
There has also been very little evidence filed by the landlord in support of the damage claims. The landlord stated that the tenant caused significant damage to the property however has only provided a small number of photographs along with a ‘Loss per Event’ schedule. The landlord stated during the hearing that this schedule is evidence of damage expenses incurred by the landlord. It is not. It is merely a spreadsheet itemising what areas of the house were damaged and an estimate of costs for insurance purposes.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the owner had decided not to go ahead with an insurance claim because of the high excess.
The landlord has not provided payment receipts for the damage, neither has he provided any entry photographs taken at the start of the tenancy. There were photographs provided with the application which clearly show some damage (for example holes in walls, damage to the framework around a door, windowsill damage and ink stain on the carpet) however no clear evidence of when these photos were taken and what the state of the property was like when the tenancy began. The landlord also confirmed during the hearing that he had not brought evidence of actual repair costs with him. He confirmed that damage costs and carpet replacement had been paid for.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant Ms Tickner did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not return the keys.
Having considered the evidence provided with this application I am prepared to allow a reduced amount for rubbish removal and lawnmowing as at 17 January 2023. This is based on an average cost for these services. I find that Ms Tickner is responsible for these amounts.
The claims in respect of key and heat pump remote control replacement are dismissed as there was no evidence filed in support of these claims.

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.
For the reasons outlined above the landlord’s claim for damage compensation must be dismissed.
Because Zhen Gang Xu has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4500841. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$610.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$17.27	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$400.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$400.00	Lawns and Garden work

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Lindsay Helen Janine Tickner must pay Zhen Gang Xu $1,447.71 immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5322735-008) to Jason David Lee immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant Jason David Lee also attended and was supported during the hearing by his sister.
There was no appearance by Lindsay Tickner.
This decision should also be read in conjunction with an earlier Tenancy Tribunal Order (4426405) dated 10 January 2023.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
This tenancy commenced in July 2019. Jason Lee was the sole tenant named on the tenancy agreement. He paid the full bond. This was originally a fixed term tenancy for 12 months ending 10 July 2020.
The parties entered into a new fixed term for a further 12 months commencing 8 October 2021 and ending 8 September 2022. Again, the agreement was only between the landlord and Jason Lee. After that, the tenancy reverted to a periodic tenancy.
On 7 January 2022 Jason Lee was involved in a serious accident. This resulted in multiple brain bleeds and skull fractures. He was in an induced coma and in the ICU for an extended period of time. He then suffered a stroke and has been in rehabilitative care for lengthy periods. He has not lived at the tenancy address since the time of the accident; he has either been hospitalised, at a rehabilitation facility or living with his sister Rochelle. As a result of these brain injuries Jason Lee has some cognitive impairment and is unable to take care of himself.
On 19 and 21 January 2022 a change of tenant form was completed and signed by the landlord and Ms Tickner, adding Ms Tickner to the tenancy. The sole tenant Jason Lee was in a coma and therefore unaware of what was happening. Jason Lee (assisted by his sister) therefore sent an email to Mr Zhang on 28 September 2022 giving notice to terminate the tenancy. In the circumstances, Mr Zhang waived the normal notice period of 28 days and instead allowed Mr Lee to give 14 days’ notice.
The tenancy therefore ended on 12 October 2022.
Ms Tickner however, failed to vacate the property on 12 October 2022 when the tenancy ended. On 19 October 2022 she sent a further email to Mr Zhang advising that “I don’t agree to ending the tenancy and you need everyone OK”. Mr Zhang responded that he had already accepted the notice ending the tenancy and requested her to vacate the property and return the keys. Ms Tickner stayed on.
The earlier Order from this Tribunal granted possession to the landlord as at 12 January 2023. At about 9:30 am on 13 January 2023, the landlord arrived at the address and found that there were still people living in it. He spoke to an unknown male who advised him that Lindsay had rented out the room to him. The landlord asked him to move out immediately.
On the morning of 15 January 2023, the unknown male was still living at the address when the landlord visited again. He called the police. The police gave them an eviction order with one day to move out.
The landlord returned on the morning of 17 January 2023 and found no one living in the house. A red Mazda motor vehicle had been left in the driveway of the property. The landlord stated that the outside area of the property was full of rubbish and weeds were overgrown. The inside of the house was also full of rubbish and was also badly damaged. The landlord’s application

How much is owed for rent and water charges?

The tenant Ms Tickner remained in possession until 17 January 2023. The landlord provided rent and water records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted the landlord’s rent ledger I am satisfied that Ms Tickner is responsible for the outstanding rent and water arrears.
The landlord also seeks compensation for rubbish removal, lawn mowing, key replacement, heat pump remote control replacement and compensation for damage.
Unfortunately for the landlord, very little evidence was presented in support of these claims. I have sighted two ‘quotes’ from an unknown source in respect of lawnmowing and rubbish removal. These quotes were not in the form that one would expect in these circumstances. Actual expense claims should have been filed in support, especially given the significant amounts being claimed. The landlord stated that he took photographs on 16 January 2023 of the rubbish and junk left behind. Mr Lee’s sister also stated during the hearing that she hired a jumbo bin and went to the property in early October 2022 and removed rubbish which Mr Lee would have been liable for.
The landlord has also failed to provide evidence in support of replacement keys and heat pump remote control replacement.
There has also been very little evidence filed by the landlord in support of the damage claims. The landlord stated that the tenant caused significant damage to the property however has only provided a small number of photographs along with a ‘Loss per Event’ schedule. The landlord stated during the hearing that this schedule is evidence of damage expenses incurred by the landlord. It is not. It is merely a spreadsheet itemising what areas of the house were damaged and an estimate of costs for insurance purposes.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the owner had decided not to go ahead with an insurance claim because of the high excess.
The landlord has not provided payment receipts for the damage, neither has he provided any entry photographs taken at the start of the tenancy. There were photographs provided with the application which clearly show some damage (for example holes in walls, damage to the framework around a door, windowsill damage and ink stain on the carpet) however no clear evidence of when these photos were taken and what the state of the property was like when the tenancy began. The landlord also confirmed during the hearing that he had not brought evidence of actual repair costs with him. He confirmed that damage costs and carpet replacement had been paid for.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant Ms Tickner did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not return the keys.
Having considered the evidence provided with this application I am prepared to allow a reduced amount for rubbish removal and lawnmowing as at 17 January 2023. This is based on an average cost for these services. I find that Ms Tickner is responsible for these amounts.
The claims in respect of key and heat pump remote control replacement are dismissed as there was no evidence filed in support of these claims.

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.
For the reasons outlined above the landlord’s claim for damage compensation must be dismissed.
Because Zhen Gang Xu has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4500841 — Rent arrears at 63A Glamorgan Drive, Torbay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4500841 — Rent arrears at 63A Glamorgan Drive, Torbay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water charges?

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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water charges?

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