What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4611070?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4611070?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4611070?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4611070?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9195364-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4611070?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4611070?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4611070?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4611070?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9195364-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Currie Street, Port Chalmers, Port Chalmers 9023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4611070 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

24 Currie Street, Port Chalmers, Port Chalmers 9023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4611070 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Both applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord initially applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing the landlord submitted that he had miscalculated and there were no arrears owing, but he continued to claim compensation.
The tenant cross applied for compensation and refund of overpaid rent.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy was for a fixed term due to end on 23/1/2023.
On 2/1/2023 the landlord gave the tenant 21 days notice to vacate the premises because the property was to be sold.
The landlord believed the tenant vacated on 20/2/2023.
The tenant suggested they vacated on 13/2/2023.
Initially the landlord applied for rent arrears of $1,384.00 and provided rent records to support the amount owing to 10/2/2023.
In response the tenant provided an email from the landlord dated 11/5/2023 confirming that the tenant had in fact overpaid rent by $327.00.
The landlord did not dispute the evidence about overpayment of rent.
I find the claim for overpaid rent of $327.00 is successful.

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 landlord claimed compensation of $42.97 tip fees.
In support of the claim the landlord provided photographs taken several days after the tenant left the premises and invoices.
The landlord submitted that at the beginning of the tenancy the house had been “immaculate” but this was not the case at the end of the tenancy.
Further, the landlord suggested that no claims had been made for cleaning the curtains or tidying the gardens.
In response the tenant suggested that they had been told not to tidy the garden and provided a letter from the landlord dated 29/1/2023 to that effect.
A witness for the tenant gave evidence that she helped the tenant move and felt the house was left tidy.
The applicant, in this case the landlord, is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
I find the landlord has failed to persuade me that it is more likely than not the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, in particular the garden.
The letter from the landlord dated 29/1/2023 supports the belief of the tenant that they were not expected to tidy the garden.
The claim for compensation of $42.97 fails.

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.
The landlord claimed compensation as follows: a. $800.00 insurance excess for carpet replacement b. $200.00 carpet cleaning c. $380.00 for replacement of door glass d. $85.00 for oil for repairing kitchen bench
In support of the claim the landlord provided invoices, an email with an insurance assessors report and undated photographs.
The tenant disputed the damage.
The witness for the tenant also felt there was no damage and that the carpet did not smell.
Despite the lack of any property inspection reports I consider the landlord has proved, just, that there was damage caused to the carpets and door glass during the term of the tenancy.
The tenant did have a cat door installed which more likely than not caused the glass in the door to crack.
In addition, the insurance assessors report after the carpets had been cleaned supports extensive damage to the carpets as a result of cat urine.
However, I am not persuaded by the evidence that the scratching on the kitchen bench was anything other than fair wear and tear.
The claim for the insurance excess, carpet cleaning and glass repair of $1,380.00 succeeds.
The claim for $85.00 compensation fails.

Did the landlord lodge the bond?

There is no dispute that on 28/1/2023 the tenant paid the landlord $1,460.00.
Nor is there any dispute that the amount was not lodged as a bond.
The landlord submitted the amount was three weeks rent in advance and that he had not asked for a bond.
On the other hand, the tenant believed the payment was for a bond.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A landlord must not require a tenant to pay more than two weeks in advance or rent before the already paid rent expires. See section 23(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See sections 19(2), 23(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Irrespective of whether the $1,460.00 payment was a bond or three weeks rent in advance I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
The landlord accepted the payment and used it towards rent, without any consultation with the tenant.

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

As the tenant did not ask for exemplary damages, I do not need to consider that issue.
The tenant sought $2,910.00 compensation made up of six weeks “free” rent they suggested had been promised by the landlord to help them into a new tenancy.
In support of the compensation claim the tenant provided a letter from a relative confirming the landlord’s offer of two weeks “free rent” to help them move.
Further the tenant provided a copies of text messages between the parties in which the landlord confirmed they did not have to pay a weeks rent so that they had the first weeks rent for the new house.
An undated statement from the tenant who was unable to appear suggested that the landlord later offered a further four weeks free rent.
Both parties agreed that the last rent payment by the tenant was 7/2/2023.
I am persuaded by the evidence that the landlord agreed to allow two weeks free rent at the end of the tenancy.
However, I am not satisfied that the evidence supports a further four weeks free rent was offered by the landlord. This is not supported by the last rent payment being made only a week or two before the tenants’ vacated.
According to my calculations the landlord has been successful with his claim for a total of $1,380.00 and the tenant for $1,297.00.
As the difference is only $83.00, I do not consider it reasonable to make an award and in the interests of a fair and expeditious resolution of the dispute between the parties have dismissed both applications.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
In addition, the Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
I have taken into account that the landlord committed an unlawful act by either failing to lodge the bond or require rent more than two weeks in advance, but that the tenant did not ask for exemplary damages.
Further I consider the landlord’s notice of 2/1/2023 was invalid because it was given outside the requirements contained in sections 50(1)(a), 51 and 60A.
The landlord was clearly unaware of a significant number of provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, especially the more recent amendments about notice to end tenancies.
I consider this lack of knowledge ultimately led to the escalation of the dispute between the parties.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Both applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord initially applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing the landlord submitted that he had miscalculated and there were no arrears owing, but he continued to claim compensation.
The tenant cross applied for compensation and refund of overpaid rent.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy was for a fixed term due to end on 23/1/2023.
On 2/1/2023 the landlord gave the tenant 21 days notice to vacate the premises because the property was to be sold.
The landlord believed the tenant vacated on 20/2/2023.
The tenant suggested they vacated on 13/2/2023.
Initially the landlord applied for rent arrears of $1,384.00 and provided rent records to support the amount owing to 10/2/2023.
In response the tenant provided an email from the landlord dated 11/5/2023 confirming that the tenant had in fact overpaid rent by $327.00.
The landlord did not dispute the evidence about overpayment of rent.
I find the claim for overpaid rent of $327.00 is successful.

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 landlord claimed compensation of $42.97 tip fees.
In support of the claim the landlord provided photographs taken several days after the tenant left the premises and invoices.
The landlord submitted that at the beginning of the tenancy the house had been “immaculate” but this was not the case at the end of the tenancy.
Further, the landlord suggested that no claims had been made for cleaning the curtains or tidying the gardens.
In response the tenant suggested that they had been told not to tidy the garden and provided a letter from the landlord dated 29/1/2023 to that effect.
A witness for the tenant gave evidence that she helped the tenant move and felt the house was left tidy.
The applicant, in this case the landlord, is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
I find the landlord has failed to persuade me that it is more likely than not the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, in particular the garden.
The letter from the landlord dated 29/1/2023 supports the belief of the tenant that they were not expected to tidy the garden.
The claim for compensation of $42.97 fails.

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.
The landlord claimed compensation as follows: a. $800.00 insurance excess for carpet replacement b. $200.00 carpet cleaning c. $380.00 for replacement of door glass d. $85.00 for oil for repairing kitchen bench
In support of the claim the landlord provided invoices, an email with an insurance assessors report and undated photographs.
The tenant disputed the damage.
The witness for the tenant also felt there was no damage and that the carpet did not smell.
Despite the lack of any property inspection reports I consider the landlord has proved, just, that there was damage caused to the carpets and door glass during the term of the tenancy.
The tenant did have a cat door installed which more likely than not caused the glass in the door to crack.
In addition, the insurance assessors report after the carpets had been cleaned supports extensive damage to the carpets as a result of cat urine.
However, I am not persuaded by the evidence that the scratching on the kitchen bench was anything other than fair wear and tear.
The claim for the insurance excess, carpet cleaning and glass repair of $1,380.00 succeeds.
The claim for $85.00 compensation fails.

Did the landlord lodge the bond?

There is no dispute that on 28/1/2023 the tenant paid the landlord $1,460.00.
Nor is there any dispute that the amount was not lodged as a bond.
The landlord submitted the amount was three weeks rent in advance and that he had not asked for a bond.
On the other hand, the tenant believed the payment was for a bond.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A landlord must not require a tenant to pay more than two weeks in advance or rent before the already paid rent expires. See section 23(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See sections 19(2), 23(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Irrespective of whether the $1,460.00 payment was a bond or three weeks rent in advance I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
The landlord accepted the payment and used it towards rent, without any consultation with the tenant.

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

As the tenant did not ask for exemplary damages, I do not need to consider that issue.
The tenant sought $2,910.00 compensation made up of six weeks “free” rent they suggested had been promised by the landlord to help them into a new tenancy.
In support of the compensation claim the tenant provided a letter from a relative confirming the landlord’s offer of two weeks “free rent” to help them move.
Further the tenant provided a copies of text messages between the parties in which the landlord confirmed they did not have to pay a weeks rent so that they had the first weeks rent for the new house.
An undated statement from the tenant who was unable to appear suggested that the landlord later offered a further four weeks free rent.
Both parties agreed that the last rent payment by the tenant was 7/2/2023.
I am persuaded by the evidence that the landlord agreed to allow two weeks free rent at the end of the tenancy.
However, I am not satisfied that the evidence supports a further four weeks free rent was offered by the landlord. This is not supported by the last rent payment being made only a week or two before the tenants’ vacated.
According to my calculations the landlord has been successful with his claim for a total of $1,380.00 and the tenant for $1,297.00.
As the difference is only $83.00, I do not consider it reasonable to make an award and in the interests of a fair and expeditious resolution of the dispute between the parties have dismissed both applications.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
In addition, the Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
I have taken into account that the landlord committed an unlawful act by either failing to lodge the bond or require rent more than two weeks in advance, but that the tenant did not ask for exemplary damages.
Further I consider the landlord’s notice of 2/1/2023 was invalid because it was given outside the requirements contained in sections 50(1)(a), 51 and 60A.
The landlord was clearly unaware of a significant number of provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, especially the more recent amendments about notice to end tenancies.
I consider this lack of knowledge ultimately led to the escalation of the dispute between the parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4611070 — Rent arrears at 24 Currie Street, Port Chalmers, Port Chalmers 9023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4611070 — Rent arrears at 24 Currie Street, Port Chalmers, Port Chalmers 9023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord lodge the bond?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord lodge the bond?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions