What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4563530?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4563530?

BY CONSENT - Power: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $751.43 awarded to landlord; BY CONSENT - Floor: $132.98 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4563530?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4563530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9218473-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4563530?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4563530?

BY CONSENT - Power: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $751.43 awarded to landlord; BY CONSENT - Floor: $132.98 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4563530?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4563530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9218473-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Onaero, Urenui Tenancy Tribunal Case 4563530 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4563530 — net $1,354.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 April 2023	$751.43	Rent arrears to 3 April 2023
Repairs: BY CONSENT - Floor	$132.98	Repairs: BY CONSENT - Floor
BY CONSENT - Power	$250.00	BY CONSENT - Power
Rubbish removal	$200.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,354.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,354.85

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Kristy Lee McLay, Millie McLay and Jacob Moore are to pay M&M Realty 2019 Limited as agent for Trevor Long and Lillian Deborah Rose Gamble $1,354.85 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,354.85 (5278875-004) to M&M Realty 2019 Limited as agent for Trevor Long and Lillian Deborah Rose Gamble immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $645.15 (5278875-004) to Kirsty Lee McLay, Millie McLay and Jacob Moore immediately.
The landlord’s claims for storage costs and to dispose of goods were withdrawn.
Kristy Lee McLay’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord named on the tenancy agreement is Trevor Long. He attended the hearing with his partner Ms Gamble. Mr Long considers Ms Gamble to own the property with him. She was added to the application with the tenant’s consent so that she could assist with the presentation of the case as she had undertaken much of the administration during the tenancy.
M&M Realty 2019 Limited were involved at the start of the tenancy by finding the tenant and preparing the tenancy agreement they also took over the management of the tenancy from Mr Long during the term of the tenancy. Ms Page attended the hearing for M&M Realty 2019 Limited as Mr Long’s agent and also due to the claim bought by Ms K McLay.
Ms K McLay and Ms M McLay attended the hearing. Mr Moore did not attend. I am satisfied he has been served and the hearing proceeded in his absence.
Ms K McLay bought her application against the landlord first. Her claim was originally bought against M&M Realty Limited. The correct legal name of the entity concerned is M&M 2019 Realty Limited. With the consent of the parties the name on the tenant’s application is amended.
The tenant clarified that she also wanted to include Mr Long and Ms Gamble as respondents to her application. They agreed to the addition of their names as parties.
No application against the landlord was bought by Ms M McLay and Mr Moore.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, power, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The Ms K McLay applied for compensation for loss of earnings caused by a delay in the refund of the bond.
As explained at the hearing, the person who brings the application is required to establish their claim to the civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities. In determining an issue the Tribunal has to be sufficiently certain on the balance of probabilities before making an order in favour of a particular party. Deciding on one way or another does not mean that the unsuccessful party is necessarily wrong. It means that on the basis of the evidence presented, I was not sufficiently certain to make an order.
For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all of the evidence presented at the hearing but the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.

How much is owed for rent and power?

The tenancy ended on 3 April 2023. The parties agreed that the amount paid by the tenants during the course of the tenancy in total was $60,320.00.
The key issue in relation to the rent arrears was the start date of the tenancy. The landlord says that the start date was 30 November 2020.
The tenant disagrees and says she moved in on 4 or 5 December 2020. The tenant says she agreed this with a representative of the landlord because the property was not ready at that time. There was no probative evidence to support this.
The landlord says that this is not the case and provided evidence in the form of a letter from the representative who the tenant says she dealt with. The landlord says that the property was ready from a date well before the tenancy start date. The landlord says that the concession that was made was that the tenant could pay her bond in two parts. Part was paid on 4 December 2020.
I find that the landlord has the best evidence relating to the start date of the tenancy and I find it began on 30 November 2020. The tenancy agreement expressly records the start date of the tenancy. The tenant may have moved in later but, without probative evidence of the position put forward by the tenant, this does not alter any contractual obligation from which rent starts to run.
The weekly rent is $500.00. On the basis of the evidence presented that: $60,320.00 was paid, my finding that the start date of the tenancy is 30 November 2020 and the end date was 3 April 2023 I award the landlord $751.43 in rent arrears.
The parties agreed by consent that the tenant would pay $250.00 to satisfy her outstanding power bills. This sum is therefore ordered. Damaged floor
The landlord claimed $132.98 for repairs to a floor. The tenant agreed to the sum ordered by consent.

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 and remove all rubbish. See s 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord’s claim is for 11.5 hours of labour for rubbish removal and the cost of a 6m 3 skip to remove rubbish left at the premises.
The landlord presented probative evidence in the form of a number of photographs. These photographs were taken on 6 April 2023.
The difficulty with the evidential value of these photographs is that they were taken while the tenant was still in the process of still cleaning out her belongings because some additional time had been given to her after the tenancy had ended to clear out the house.
The tenant and landlord agree that many of the items shown in the photographs presented by the landlord were removed by the tenant before the landlord had to do anything with them. While leaving rubbish/personal items at the property after a tenancy has terminated is a breach of the RTA (s 40(1)(e)(ii) and 40(1)(e)(iii)) an applicant is restricted in their claim to the application they have made. Here, the landlord’s claim is for compensation for time spent / the cost of rubbish removal. The landlord incurred no labour time and no disposal costs for the removal of items that were untouched and collected later by the tenant.
The focus of the claim must therefore be the items that the landlord says they had to tidy and dispose of.
It was not disputed that the landlord had to dispose of a large gymnastic vault, 8 beer crates and 2 drums that had been used for burning. I also accept that broken glass and ash was left in the garden as evidenced by the photograph provided. I accept that a compensation should be allowed for the tidying and disposal of these items.
The landlord said glass / ash was throughout the garden. The tenant said there was just one area where she had sprinkled it into the garden. Other than that which is mentioned above, there was no probative evidence of glass being spread throughout the garden so the landlord has not satisfied the necessary burden of proof in relation to this. Although the tenant admitted adding ash to one part of the garden (saying it is good for the garden) other than the areas photographed I cannot see the extent, if any, of the work required in relation to that and cannot therefore calculate how much is a sum reasonable to award to tidy.
The landlords say that items were also left by the side of a shed. The tenants say the items were there when they moved in. The difficulty for the landlord here is that although they say that was not the case there is no pre-tenancy property inspection report or photographs from the start of the tenancy.
The landlords say that a number of items were left in the shed. The tenants challenge this and say they did remove items and tidy the shed. The difficulty here, in the face of the tenant’s evidence, is that the landlord’s supporting photographs were taken before the tenant had fully vacated the property.
The tenant admits they did leave some rubbish but dispute the volume of the rubbish left given the date of the photographs and the subsequent clean-up which they say they worked hard on. They say that there is no way the rubbish that they left filled up the skip and that the landlord has also put their own rubbish in it.
It is clear that at least some of the content of the skip relates to the disposal of some items the tenant is not responsible for because I heard evidence that the landlord had to dispose of a dog kennel and chairs that were provided to the tenant and were the landlords. No claim was bought claiming that the tenant damaged these and no evidence was presented relating to the condition of the items at the start of the tenancy or their age. I consider that the tenant is not responsible for the cost of disposing of these items. Had a claim for damage to these items been bought and established the position may have been different. These items were placed in the skip but the tenant is not responsible for that.
The difficulty for the landlord is that while probative evidence has been provided in the form of photographs, in the light of the position taken by the tenants and the time at which the photographs were taken, other than in relation to the gymnastic vault, drums, glass/ash as pictured and crates I cannot be sufficiently certain as to what rubbish was left by the tenants and also what was taken away. I also cannot be sufficiently certain how much of the skip was filled with the tenants’ rubbish.
I consider an amount of $200.00 is a reasonable amount to tidy and dispose of the tenant’s rubbish that the landlord has sufficiently proven. Removal of goods and storage
The landlord no longer wanted to pursue the claims as filed to dispose of goods or claim compensation for the storage of goods. These claims are withdrawn. Claim by K McLay
Ms K McLay bought a claim for compensation for loss of earnings. She says that she missed out on jobs because she could not get her car fixed due to not having the bond back.
I dismiss this claim. Genuine issues have needed to be resolved by the Tribunal relating to the tenancy and I accept the landlord’s position that the Bond has remained in the correct place until the Tribunal determined the claim.
The tenant also had no probative evidence of her loss. Filing fee
The landlord has been substantially successful, so I have awarded reimbursement of the filing fee. Ms K McLay was not successful so her filing fee is not awarded. Suppression
No party requested name suppression when asked so no suppression order is made.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4563530 — net $1,354.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 April 2023	$751.43	Rent arrears to 3 April 2023
Repairs: BY CONSENT - Floor	$132.98	Repairs: BY CONSENT - Floor
BY CONSENT - Power	$250.00	BY CONSENT - Power
Rubbish removal	$200.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,354.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,354.85

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Kristy Lee McLay, Millie McLay and Jacob Moore are to pay M&M Realty 2019 Limited as agent for Trevor Long and Lillian Deborah Rose Gamble $1,354.85 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,354.85 (5278875-004) to M&M Realty 2019 Limited as agent for Trevor Long and Lillian Deborah Rose Gamble immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $645.15 (5278875-004) to Kirsty Lee McLay, Millie McLay and Jacob Moore immediately.
The landlord’s claims for storage costs and to dispose of goods were withdrawn.
Kristy Lee McLay’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord named on the tenancy agreement is Trevor Long. He attended the hearing with his partner Ms Gamble. Mr Long considers Ms Gamble to own the property with him. She was added to the application with the tenant’s consent so that she could assist with the presentation of the case as she had undertaken much of the administration during the tenancy.
M&M Realty 2019 Limited were involved at the start of the tenancy by finding the tenant and preparing the tenancy agreement they also took over the management of the tenancy from Mr Long during the term of the tenancy. Ms Page attended the hearing for M&M Realty 2019 Limited as Mr Long’s agent and also due to the claim bought by Ms K McLay.
Ms K McLay and Ms M McLay attended the hearing. Mr Moore did not attend. I am satisfied he has been served and the hearing proceeded in his absence.
Ms K McLay bought her application against the landlord first. Her claim was originally bought against M&M Realty Limited. The correct legal name of the entity concerned is M&M 2019 Realty Limited. With the consent of the parties the name on the tenant’s application is amended.
The tenant clarified that she also wanted to include Mr Long and Ms Gamble as respondents to her application. They agreed to the addition of their names as parties.
No application against the landlord was bought by Ms M McLay and Mr Moore.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, power, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The Ms K McLay applied for compensation for loss of earnings caused by a delay in the refund of the bond.
As explained at the hearing, the person who brings the application is required to establish their claim to the civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities. In determining an issue the Tribunal has to be sufficiently certain on the balance of probabilities before making an order in favour of a particular party. Deciding on one way or another does not mean that the unsuccessful party is necessarily wrong. It means that on the basis of the evidence presented, I was not sufficiently certain to make an order.
For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all of the evidence presented at the hearing but the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.

How much is owed for rent and power?

The tenancy ended on 3 April 2023. The parties agreed that the amount paid by the tenants during the course of the tenancy in total was $60,320.00.
The key issue in relation to the rent arrears was the start date of the tenancy. The landlord says that the start date was 30 November 2020.
The tenant disagrees and says she moved in on 4 or 5 December 2020. The tenant says she agreed this with a representative of the landlord because the property was not ready at that time. There was no probative evidence to support this.
The landlord says that this is not the case and provided evidence in the form of a letter from the representative who the tenant says she dealt with. The landlord says that the property was ready from a date well before the tenancy start date. The landlord says that the concession that was made was that the tenant could pay her bond in two parts. Part was paid on 4 December 2020.
I find that the landlord has the best evidence relating to the start date of the tenancy and I find it began on 30 November 2020. The tenancy agreement expressly records the start date of the tenancy. The tenant may have moved in later but, without probative evidence of the position put forward by the tenant, this does not alter any contractual obligation from which rent starts to run.
The weekly rent is $500.00. On the basis of the evidence presented that: $60,320.00 was paid, my finding that the start date of the tenancy is 30 November 2020 and the end date was 3 April 2023 I award the landlord $751.43 in rent arrears.
The parties agreed by consent that the tenant would pay $250.00 to satisfy her outstanding power bills. This sum is therefore ordered. Damaged floor
The landlord claimed $132.98 for repairs to a floor. The tenant agreed to the sum ordered by consent.

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 and remove all rubbish. See s 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord’s claim is for 11.5 hours of labour for rubbish removal and the cost of a 6m 3 skip to remove rubbish left at the premises.
The landlord presented probative evidence in the form of a number of photographs. These photographs were taken on 6 April 2023.
The difficulty with the evidential value of these photographs is that they were taken while the tenant was still in the process of still cleaning out her belongings because some additional time had been given to her after the tenancy had ended to clear out the house.
The tenant and landlord agree that many of the items shown in the photographs presented by the landlord were removed by the tenant before the landlord had to do anything with them. While leaving rubbish/personal items at the property after a tenancy has terminated is a breach of the RTA (s 40(1)(e)(ii) and 40(1)(e)(iii)) an applicant is restricted in their claim to the application they have made. Here, the landlord’s claim is for compensation for time spent / the cost of rubbish removal. The landlord incurred no labour time and no disposal costs for the removal of items that were untouched and collected later by the tenant.
The focus of the claim must therefore be the items that the landlord says they had to tidy and dispose of.
It was not disputed that the landlord had to dispose of a large gymnastic vault, 8 beer crates and 2 drums that had been used for burning. I also accept that broken glass and ash was left in the garden as evidenced by the photograph provided. I accept that a compensation should be allowed for the tidying and disposal of these items.
The landlord said glass / ash was throughout the garden. The tenant said there was just one area where she had sprinkled it into the garden. Other than that which is mentioned above, there was no probative evidence of glass being spread throughout the garden so the landlord has not satisfied the necessary burden of proof in relation to this. Although the tenant admitted adding ash to one part of the garden (saying it is good for the garden) other than the areas photographed I cannot see the extent, if any, of the work required in relation to that and cannot therefore calculate how much is a sum reasonable to award to tidy.
The landlords say that items were also left by the side of a shed. The tenants say the items were there when they moved in. The difficulty for the landlord here is that although they say that was not the case there is no pre-tenancy property inspection report or photographs from the start of the tenancy.
The landlords say that a number of items were left in the shed. The tenants challenge this and say they did remove items and tidy the shed. The difficulty here, in the face of the tenant’s evidence, is that the landlord’s supporting photographs were taken before the tenant had fully vacated the property.
The tenant admits they did leave some rubbish but dispute the volume of the rubbish left given the date of the photographs and the subsequent clean-up which they say they worked hard on. They say that there is no way the rubbish that they left filled up the skip and that the landlord has also put their own rubbish in it.
It is clear that at least some of the content of the skip relates to the disposal of some items the tenant is not responsible for because I heard evidence that the landlord had to dispose of a dog kennel and chairs that were provided to the tenant and were the landlords. No claim was bought claiming that the tenant damaged these and no evidence was presented relating to the condition of the items at the start of the tenancy or their age. I consider that the tenant is not responsible for the cost of disposing of these items. Had a claim for damage to these items been bought and established the position may have been different. These items were placed in the skip but the tenant is not responsible for that.
The difficulty for the landlord is that while probative evidence has been provided in the form of photographs, in the light of the position taken by the tenants and the time at which the photographs were taken, other than in relation to the gymnastic vault, drums, glass/ash as pictured and crates I cannot be sufficiently certain as to what rubbish was left by the tenants and also what was taken away. I also cannot be sufficiently certain how much of the skip was filled with the tenants’ rubbish.
I consider an amount of $200.00 is a reasonable amount to tidy and dispose of the tenant’s rubbish that the landlord has sufficiently proven. Removal of goods and storage
The landlord no longer wanted to pursue the claims as filed to dispose of goods or claim compensation for the storage of goods. These claims are withdrawn. Claim by K McLay
Ms K McLay bought a claim for compensation for loss of earnings. She says that she missed out on jobs because she could not get her car fixed due to not having the bond back.
I dismiss this claim. Genuine issues have needed to be resolved by the Tribunal relating to the tenancy and I accept the landlord’s position that the Bond has remained in the correct place until the Tribunal determined the claim.
The tenant also had no probative evidence of her loss. Filing fee
The landlord has been substantially successful, so I have awarded reimbursement of the filing fee. Ms K McLay was not successful so her filing fee is not awarded. Suppression
No party requested name suppression when asked so no suppression order is made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4563530 — Rent arrears in Onaero, Urenui

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4563530 — Rent arrears in Onaero, Urenui

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and power?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and power?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions