What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4545189?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4545189?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $930.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4545189?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4545189?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9426265-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4545189?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4545189?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $930.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4545189?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4545189?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9426265-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

84 Estuary Road, New Brighton, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4545189 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4545189 — net $950.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (in lieu of notice	$930.00	Rent arrears (in lieu of notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$950.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$950.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, but no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Melissa Clare Timms and Lester Riwaka must pay Alistair Neil Bowie $950.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears (in lieu of notice)$930.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$950.44 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$950.44
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Timms attended for the tenants.
The landlord applied for rent arrears of $4,200 and compensation for damage to timber floors. The initial claim for floor damage was $200, but that was increased to $4,933.50.
The tenancy ended in December 2019. This application was submitted in April 2023.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on or about 7 December 2023.
The landlord claimed rent arrears or loss of rent of $4,200 on the basis that the tenant had failed to give the correct notice to terminate the tenancy. He provided a rent summary which showed that the rent which accrued between the tenant moving out and a new tenancy commencing on 14 February 2020, would have been $3,230 and clarified that he was claiming that amount.
The landlord said that the tenant should have provided 6 weeks’ notice to end the tenancy but claimed rent for 9 weeks and 4 days. He could not explain why he says that the tenant should have given 6 weeks’ notice to terminate.
At the time this tenancy ended, the required notice period for a tenant to end a periodic tenancy was 21 days (it is now 28 days). This was a fixed term tenancy, so was only terminable by agreement between the parties or by Order of the Tribunal. The landlord did not rely on the tenancy being fixed term at the hearing, or in any correspondence with the tenants when they advised they wished to move.
Ms Timms said that she gave notice of an intention to move out by text. The landlord replied by asking what date the teats were planning to leave. The tenant said “this week or next” and the landlord replied “up to you.” On its face, that text exchange demonstrates the landlord’s acceptance of notice and a flexibility around the move out date.
The landlord then started requesting more formal notice of termination, which was not provided. The text exchanges show that the tenant was confused by the change in the landlord’s attitude. In a text dated 7 December 2019 she noted; “I did say that we would move this weekend or next and you said either.”
I find that the landlord accepted the tenant’s termination of a fixed term tenancy. But, given that there was some ambiguity around the move out date, I have awarded the landlord three weeks rent in lieu of notice. The balance of the landlord’s claim for rent is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord’s application claimed $200 for floor damage. That was increased to $4,933.50 before the hearing, based on a quote for work dated 12 June 2023.
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 provided photographs of alleged floor damage taken on 15 April 2020; four months after these tenants left the property. He did not provide any photographs of the floor from the start of the tenancy. The landlord submitted a quote to resurface the floors throughout the property as at 12 June 2023; 3.5 years after these tenants moved out.
The tenant disputed that the damage was caused by her dog. She said that some damage was caused by tradesmen employed by the landlord during her tenancy. She also said that the flooring contractor who provided the June 2023 quote advised her that the current tenants also have dogs inside the property. The landlord did not dispute that, rather he claimed that dogs were allowed since the floors were already damaged.
The landlord has failed to establish that the damage occurred during this tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. He also failed to establish what, if any, loss he has suffered because of damage caused during this tenancy. The floors have not been resurfaced and the landlord did not establish how much of the amount claimed may have been attributable to damage which occurred subsequently. The claim for resurfacing the floors is dismissed.
As the landlord partially succeeded with a claim for rent arrears, I have awarded reimbursement of the filing fee. However, the landlord was not substantially successful, so I have not granted his request for suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4545189 — net $950.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (in lieu of notice	$930.00	Rent arrears (in lieu of notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$950.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$950.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, but no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Melissa Clare Timms and Lester Riwaka must pay Alistair Neil Bowie $950.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears (in lieu of notice)$930.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$950.44 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$950.44
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Timms attended for the tenants.
The landlord applied for rent arrears of $4,200 and compensation for damage to timber floors. The initial claim for floor damage was $200, but that was increased to $4,933.50.
The tenancy ended in December 2019. This application was submitted in April 2023.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on or about 7 December 2023.
The landlord claimed rent arrears or loss of rent of $4,200 on the basis that the tenant had failed to give the correct notice to terminate the tenancy. He provided a rent summary which showed that the rent which accrued between the tenant moving out and a new tenancy commencing on 14 February 2020, would have been $3,230 and clarified that he was claiming that amount.
The landlord said that the tenant should have provided 6 weeks’ notice to end the tenancy but claimed rent for 9 weeks and 4 days. He could not explain why he says that the tenant should have given 6 weeks’ notice to terminate.
At the time this tenancy ended, the required notice period for a tenant to end a periodic tenancy was 21 days (it is now 28 days). This was a fixed term tenancy, so was only terminable by agreement between the parties or by Order of the Tribunal. The landlord did not rely on the tenancy being fixed term at the hearing, or in any correspondence with the tenants when they advised they wished to move.
Ms Timms said that she gave notice of an intention to move out by text. The landlord replied by asking what date the teats were planning to leave. The tenant said “this week or next” and the landlord replied “up to you.” On its face, that text exchange demonstrates the landlord’s acceptance of notice and a flexibility around the move out date.
The landlord then started requesting more formal notice of termination, which was not provided. The text exchanges show that the tenant was confused by the change in the landlord’s attitude. In a text dated 7 December 2019 she noted; “I did say that we would move this weekend or next and you said either.”
I find that the landlord accepted the tenant’s termination of a fixed term tenancy. But, given that there was some ambiguity around the move out date, I have awarded the landlord three weeks rent in lieu of notice. The balance of the landlord’s claim for rent is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord’s application claimed $200 for floor damage. That was increased to $4,933.50 before the hearing, based on a quote for work dated 12 June 2023.
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 provided photographs of alleged floor damage taken on 15 April 2020; four months after these tenants left the property. He did not provide any photographs of the floor from the start of the tenancy. The landlord submitted a quote to resurface the floors throughout the property as at 12 June 2023; 3.5 years after these tenants moved out.
The tenant disputed that the damage was caused by her dog. She said that some damage was caused by tradesmen employed by the landlord during her tenancy. She also said that the flooring contractor who provided the June 2023 quote advised her that the current tenants also have dogs inside the property. The landlord did not dispute that, rather he claimed that dogs were allowed since the floors were already damaged.
The landlord has failed to establish that the damage occurred during this tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. He also failed to establish what, if any, loss he has suffered because of damage caused during this tenancy. The floors have not been resurfaced and the landlord did not establish how much of the amount claimed may have been attributable to damage which occurred subsequently. The claim for resurfacing the floors is dismissed.
As the landlord partially succeeded with a claim for rent arrears, I have awarded reimbursement of the filing fee. However, the landlord was not substantially successful, so I have not granted his request for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4545189 — Rent arrears at 84 Estuary Road, New Brighton, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4545189 — Rent arrears at 84 Estuary Road, New Brighton, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions