What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4532651 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 4532651?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $10.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4532651?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4532651?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9161189-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4532651 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 4532651?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $10.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4532651?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4532651?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9161189-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4532651 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4532651 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4532651 — net $510.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$400.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$10.00	Water rates
Cleaning: areas required more attention	$100.00	Cleaning: areas required more attention
Net award	$510.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$510.00

Claims and awards for application 4532651 — net $510.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates

Amount: $10.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Cleaning: areas required more attention

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: areas required more attention

Net award

Landlord $510.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $510.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $510.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant complained that the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment during the tenancy.
I will first deal with the tenant’s claim of breach of quiet enjoyment, followed by the landlord’s claims.
When filing a complaint, the burden of proof lies with the party making the claim. The party making the complaint needs to provide evidence that it is more likely than not that the opposing party breached the terms of the agreement or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 ("RTA"). This is known as the balance of probabilities standard. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant filed a complaint against their landlord for using CCTV footage to monitor them. The footage captures public areas such as the apartment entrance and stairs. The landlord acquired the footage to support a claim against the tenant. While regular monitoring by the landlord would be concerning, the tenant's complaint does not suggest this was the case. Instead, it stemmed from the landlord's objection to the tenant subletting the premises without proper consent.
The evidence is insufficient to support the claim of breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
Accordingly, I do not consider that the landlord had breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. The tenant’s claim under this heading is dismissed.
Whether the landlord had breached the Privacy Act would be a separate issue for the tenant to consider if they want to make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord claims $10 for the unpaid water consumption during the tenancy.
The tenant agrees to pay $10 for the outstanding water rates.
The amount sought is proven.

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

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) RTA). 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) RTA).
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 RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or 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 I must evaluate the evidence available, particularly 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 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 at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
The landlord submitted that he cleaned the oven, rangehood, shower, balcony, and windows post-tenancy. The landlord also provided photos of dirty black water to show that the premises was not reasonably clean and tidy post- tenancy. In summary, the landlord submitted that had the tenant cleaned the premises to the reasonably clean in tidy standard he would not need to spend time or effort to instruct his own staff members or professional cleaners to clean the premises.
In the hearing, the tenant played video footage to show that they left the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also watched video footage in the hearing. The tenant submitted that they are only required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
In the present case, the landlord cannot say that the tenant left the premises without any cleaning. I accept that the colour of the water supports the proposition that “the tenant should have done more” but it is not what section 40(1)(e)(iii) RAT requires the tenant to do.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the landlord has discharged the burden of proof that, on the balance of probabilities, the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The claim under this heading is dismissed.
To avoid doubt, the landlord’s claims for the following cleaning costs are dismissed for the same reasons above. a. $30 - Cleaning - wash 2x bed mattress protectors stained, dirty, unhygienic. $15 each. b. $287.50 - Cleaning (Carpet, oven, rangehood, shower, balcony and windows). Compensation
Based on my assessment, I have ruled that the tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
I acknowledge that the landlord has provided evidence indicating that certain areas, such as the cupboard under the sink and shower glass, could have been cleaned more thoroughly.
Accordingly, I award the landlord $100 to cover the cost of cleaning these areas that required more attention.

Did the tenant return to the landlord all keys?

This issue also concerns the landlord's claims for rent arrears. If I find the tenant did not return to the landlord all keys, then the landlord is entitled to claim rent arrears. Because the possession remains with the tenant until the landlord has all keys returned to him.
Section 40(1)(e)(iv) RTA states, “on the termination of the tenancy return to the landlord all keys ... provide by the landlord for the use of the tenant.” (italic mine).
The landlord’s case is that the tenant did not return all keys at the end of the tenancy. He submitted that he checked the camera and access card entries and found no further entries by the tenant after 31st January 2023.
The landlord submitted that he invited the tenant to do a final inspection but did not receive confirmation from the tenant. On 3 February 2023, the landlord gave the tenant rescheduled final inspection notice after the tenant did not engage the landlord.
In the landlord’s email dated 3 February 2023 to the tenant, the landlord confirmed he “... retrieved the keys from the letter box (sic) and one set from inside the apartment....”
On 7 February 2023, the landlord entered the premises and did the exit inspection. This date was the date the landlord entered the premises. I note that the landlord submitted that the tenancy continued until 8 February 2023 because this is the date he had to arrange the cleaning “on behalf of the tenant”. I do not accept this submission. In my view, once the landlord has all the keys, the tenancy officially ends and the landlord regains possession of the property.
The tenant’s evidence is that one set of keys was left in the apartment on 30 January 2023. The other set of keys was left in the letterbox on 31 January 2023.
In the hearing, the tenant accepted that they did not engage with or notify the landlord that the keys were either in the apartment or the letterbox.
It is the tenant's responsibility to return all keys to the landlord when their tenancy ends. Even if the contract ended on 30 January 2023, it is the tenant's responsibility to inform the landlord where they left the keys. It would be incorrect to assume otherwise.
Until the landlord has all the keys, the tenancy continues. In the present case, the landlord retrieved both keys on 3 February 2023 and regained possession of the property.
The tenancy, therefore, continued from 31 January 2023 to 3 February 2023, or 4 days. The tenant owes four days’ rent to the landlord or $400.00.
Accordingly, I find the tenant failed to return all keys to the landlord on 30 January 2023 until the landlord retrieved all keys on 3 February 2023. The rent arrears is $400.00 or 4 days rent between 31 January 2023 and 3 February 2023.
After taking possession of the apartment, it is the landlord's responsibility to determine the timing of the inspection.

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. Bathroom floor repair
On 11 March 2022, the shower was blocked. The tenant continued using the shower, resulting in the water leaking into the apartment's ceiling below. In her email to the landlord, the tenant accepted that she caused the damage carelessly because she did not have her glasses on and did not realise water had escaped from the shower cubicle.
The tenant paid $103.40 for the repair on 31 March 2022.
According to the landlord, the flooding in March 2022 also damaged the fire alarm in the apartment below. The landlord submitted that an electrician confirmed that the water leak caused the damage. As a result, the landlord claims an additional $546.50 in compensation in addition to what the tenant paid on March 31, 2022.
The landlord did not submit expert evidence to support this claim. He did bring the replaced fire alarm to the hearing. I am not an electrician. I am not prepared to speculate why the fire alarm was replaced.
The evidence before me is that the landlord, in his email to the tenant dated 14 March 2022 said: “I have visited the apartment below and walls and ceiling are dry now. There is a paint damage to a part of one wall only. The ceiling and light needs just a clean. We look at the cost of that later as it is not as large as it appeared initially.”
Relying on the landlord’s email above, the tenant paid for repairing the damage caused by the leak on 31 March 2022.
In my view, the landlord has not submitted any evidence to support his contention that the tenant damaged the fire alarm in the apartment below in March 2022.
Accordingly, the landlord has not discharged the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities that the tenant damaged the fire alarm in the apartment below in March 2022.
The landlord’s claim under this heading is dismissed. Other claims
The landlord has made additional claims below: a. Illegal subletting for $160; and b. “Rent free” for two weeks for $1,240. Illegal subletting
The landlord submitted CCTV stills to show people were entering the apartment without the landlord’s consent.
The landlord submitted that those people posed security concerns to other residents because the landlord did not know who they were.
The tenant gave evidence that the male was the tenant’s brother. On one occasion, one of the tenants brought her male friend to the apartment.
I appreciate the landlord’s concern about the security. But to suggest the tenant sublet the apartment without consent based on CCTV stills was speculative and unwarranted.
Accordingly, I dismiss this claim for lack of evidence. Rent free
Under the tenancy agreement, the tenant has “2 weeks rent free paid by exiting tenants (contract early exit)”. The amount was $1,240.
The landlord submitted that the rent-free term is invalid because of the “... tenant non adherence and breach of multiple clauses of contract...”.
I find it difficult to comprehend the landlord's submissions because the two weeks rent-free was a part of the tenancy agreement with no additional conditions, and both parties agreed.
There is no principled basis for the landlord to advance this claim.
Accordingly, I dismiss the claim under this hearing. Name suppression
Both parties sought name suppression.
Both parties have substantially succeeded in proceedings.
Both parties’ application for name suppression is granted. Filing fee
Both parties have partly successful in their claims against the other.
Costs should lie where they fall.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4532651 — net $510.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$400.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$10.00	Water rates
Cleaning: areas required more attention	$100.00	Cleaning: areas required more attention
Net award	$510.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$510.00

Claims and awards for application 4532651 — net $510.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates

Amount: $10.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Cleaning: areas required more attention

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: areas required more attention

Net award

Landlord $510.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $510.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $510.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant complained that the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment during the tenancy.
I will first deal with the tenant’s claim of breach of quiet enjoyment, followed by the landlord’s claims.
When filing a complaint, the burden of proof lies with the party making the claim. The party making the complaint needs to provide evidence that it is more likely than not that the opposing party breached the terms of the agreement or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 ("RTA"). This is known as the balance of probabilities standard. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant filed a complaint against their landlord for using CCTV footage to monitor them. The footage captures public areas such as the apartment entrance and stairs. The landlord acquired the footage to support a claim against the tenant. While regular monitoring by the landlord would be concerning, the tenant's complaint does not suggest this was the case. Instead, it stemmed from the landlord's objection to the tenant subletting the premises without proper consent.
The evidence is insufficient to support the claim of breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
Accordingly, I do not consider that the landlord had breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. The tenant’s claim under this heading is dismissed.
Whether the landlord had breached the Privacy Act would be a separate issue for the tenant to consider if they want to make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord claims $10 for the unpaid water consumption during the tenancy.
The tenant agrees to pay $10 for the outstanding water rates.
The amount sought is proven.

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

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) RTA). 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) RTA).
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 RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or 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 I must evaluate the evidence available, particularly 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 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 at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
The landlord submitted that he cleaned the oven, rangehood, shower, balcony, and windows post-tenancy. The landlord also provided photos of dirty black water to show that the premises was not reasonably clean and tidy post- tenancy. In summary, the landlord submitted that had the tenant cleaned the premises to the reasonably clean in tidy standard he would not need to spend time or effort to instruct his own staff members or professional cleaners to clean the premises.
In the hearing, the tenant played video footage to show that they left the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also watched video footage in the hearing. The tenant submitted that they are only required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
In the present case, the landlord cannot say that the tenant left the premises without any cleaning. I accept that the colour of the water supports the proposition that “the tenant should have done more” but it is not what section 40(1)(e)(iii) RAT requires the tenant to do.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the landlord has discharged the burden of proof that, on the balance of probabilities, the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The claim under this heading is dismissed.
To avoid doubt, the landlord’s claims for the following cleaning costs are dismissed for the same reasons above. a. $30 - Cleaning - wash 2x bed mattress protectors stained, dirty, unhygienic. $15 each. b. $287.50 - Cleaning (Carpet, oven, rangehood, shower, balcony and windows). Compensation
Based on my assessment, I have ruled that the tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
I acknowledge that the landlord has provided evidence indicating that certain areas, such as the cupboard under the sink and shower glass, could have been cleaned more thoroughly.
Accordingly, I award the landlord $100 to cover the cost of cleaning these areas that required more attention.

Did the tenant return to the landlord all keys?

This issue also concerns the landlord's claims for rent arrears. If I find the tenant did not return to the landlord all keys, then the landlord is entitled to claim rent arrears. Because the possession remains with the tenant until the landlord has all keys returned to him.
Section 40(1)(e)(iv) RTA states, “on the termination of the tenancy return to the landlord all keys ... provide by the landlord for the use of the tenant.” (italic mine).
The landlord’s case is that the tenant did not return all keys at the end of the tenancy. He submitted that he checked the camera and access card entries and found no further entries by the tenant after 31st January 2023.
The landlord submitted that he invited the tenant to do a final inspection but did not receive confirmation from the tenant. On 3 February 2023, the landlord gave the tenant rescheduled final inspection notice after the tenant did not engage the landlord.
In the landlord’s email dated 3 February 2023 to the tenant, the landlord confirmed he “... retrieved the keys from the letter box (sic) and one set from inside the apartment....”
On 7 February 2023, the landlord entered the premises and did the exit inspection. This date was the date the landlord entered the premises. I note that the landlord submitted that the tenancy continued until 8 February 2023 because this is the date he had to arrange the cleaning “on behalf of the tenant”. I do not accept this submission. In my view, once the landlord has all the keys, the tenancy officially ends and the landlord regains possession of the property.
The tenant’s evidence is that one set of keys was left in the apartment on 30 January 2023. The other set of keys was left in the letterbox on 31 January 2023.
In the hearing, the tenant accepted that they did not engage with or notify the landlord that the keys were either in the apartment or the letterbox.
It is the tenant's responsibility to return all keys to the landlord when their tenancy ends. Even if the contract ended on 30 January 2023, it is the tenant's responsibility to inform the landlord where they left the keys. It would be incorrect to assume otherwise.
Until the landlord has all the keys, the tenancy continues. In the present case, the landlord retrieved both keys on 3 February 2023 and regained possession of the property.
The tenancy, therefore, continued from 31 January 2023 to 3 February 2023, or 4 days. The tenant owes four days’ rent to the landlord or $400.00.
Accordingly, I find the tenant failed to return all keys to the landlord on 30 January 2023 until the landlord retrieved all keys on 3 February 2023. The rent arrears is $400.00 or 4 days rent between 31 January 2023 and 3 February 2023.
After taking possession of the apartment, it is the landlord's responsibility to determine the timing of the inspection.

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. Bathroom floor repair
On 11 March 2022, the shower was blocked. The tenant continued using the shower, resulting in the water leaking into the apartment's ceiling below. In her email to the landlord, the tenant accepted that she caused the damage carelessly because she did not have her glasses on and did not realise water had escaped from the shower cubicle.
The tenant paid $103.40 for the repair on 31 March 2022.
According to the landlord, the flooding in March 2022 also damaged the fire alarm in the apartment below. The landlord submitted that an electrician confirmed that the water leak caused the damage. As a result, the landlord claims an additional $546.50 in compensation in addition to what the tenant paid on March 31, 2022.
The landlord did not submit expert evidence to support this claim. He did bring the replaced fire alarm to the hearing. I am not an electrician. I am not prepared to speculate why the fire alarm was replaced.
The evidence before me is that the landlord, in his email to the tenant dated 14 March 2022 said: “I have visited the apartment below and walls and ceiling are dry now. There is a paint damage to a part of one wall only. The ceiling and light needs just a clean. We look at the cost of that later as it is not as large as it appeared initially.”
Relying on the landlord’s email above, the tenant paid for repairing the damage caused by the leak on 31 March 2022.
In my view, the landlord has not submitted any evidence to support his contention that the tenant damaged the fire alarm in the apartment below in March 2022.
Accordingly, the landlord has not discharged the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities that the tenant damaged the fire alarm in the apartment below in March 2022.
The landlord’s claim under this heading is dismissed. Other claims
The landlord has made additional claims below: a. Illegal subletting for $160; and b. “Rent free” for two weeks for $1,240. Illegal subletting
The landlord submitted CCTV stills to show people were entering the apartment without the landlord’s consent.
The landlord submitted that those people posed security concerns to other residents because the landlord did not know who they were.
The tenant gave evidence that the male was the tenant’s brother. On one occasion, one of the tenants brought her male friend to the apartment.
I appreciate the landlord’s concern about the security. But to suggest the tenant sublet the apartment without consent based on CCTV stills was speculative and unwarranted.
Accordingly, I dismiss this claim for lack of evidence. Rent free
Under the tenancy agreement, the tenant has “2 weeks rent free paid by exiting tenants (contract early exit)”. The amount was $1,240.
The landlord submitted that the rent-free term is invalid because of the “... tenant non adherence and breach of multiple clauses of contract...”.
I find it difficult to comprehend the landlord's submissions because the two weeks rent-free was a part of the tenancy agreement with no additional conditions, and both parties agreed.
There is no principled basis for the landlord to advance this claim.
Accordingly, I dismiss the claim under this hearing. Name suppression
Both parties sought name suppression.
Both parties have substantially succeeded in proceedings.
Both parties’ application for name suppression is granted. Filing fee
Both parties have partly successful in their claims against the other.
Costs should lie where they fall.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4532651 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4532651 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant return to the landlord all keys?

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 water rates?

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant return to the landlord all keys?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions