What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4615574?

The tribunal order states: Simone Wendy Mciver and Clint Robert Wallace must pay Excel Property

How much money was awarded in case 4615574?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $155.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,229.26 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,858.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,840.76 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $457.48 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4615574?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4615574?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9985670-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4615574?

The tribunal order states: Simone Wendy Mciver and Clint Robert Wallace must pay Excel Property

How much money was awarded in case 4615574?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $155.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,229.26 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,858.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,840.76 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $457.48 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4615574?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4615574?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9985670-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7A Laser Place, Bayview, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4615574 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4615574 — net $6,161.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 July 2023	$2,229.26	Rent arrears to 11 July 2023
Water rates	$457.48	Water rates
Cleaning, carpet cleaning and rubbish removal	$3,858.25	Cleaning, carpet cleaning and rubbish removal
Skip bin fees and remainder of rubbish removal	$1,840.76	Skip bin fees and remainder of rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement: replace front door lock	$155.25	Lock/key replacement: replace front door lock
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,161.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,161.44

Order

Simone Wendy Mciver and Clint Robert Wallace must pay Excel Property Management Limited as agent for Yaoguan Cheng and Yayuan Zheng $6,161.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5608551-002) to Excel Property Management Limited As Agent For Yaoguan Cheng And Yayuan Zheng immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was held by phone. The landlord was represented by Ms Wang. Mr Wallace attended. The call placed to Ms Mciver went to voicemail. I am satisfied that Ms Mciver received notice of the hearing and so the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Onus of proof and evidence
This is the landlord’s claim and so the landlord bears the onus of proving their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).
For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence filed and presented at the hearing of this matter but the parties should be assured that I have carefully considered all of evidence in reaching my decision. Previous hearings
At the first phone hearing of this matter on 9 August 2023 Mr Wallace appeared by phone but the call to Ms Mciver went to voicemail. Mr Wallace agreed to meet the landlord at the property to discuss end of the tenancy matters including cleaning and rubbish removal. At the time it appeared that the parties might be able to informally resolve all issues between them.
At the second phone hearing of this matter on 20 September 2023 Mr Wallace appeared by phone but the call to Ms Mciver again went to voicemail. The landlord explained that Mr Wallace had not met her at the property as agreed and that she wanted to proceed with the claim and to amend the claim to include a claim for methamphetamine contamination.
At the second hearing however Mr Wallace disputed that he was in fact a tenant and said that he should not have been named as a party.
On reviewing the file during the second hearing I noted that there were in fact two tenancy agreements for the period during which Ms Mciver and Mr Wallace lived at the property.
The first was executed on 26 July 2017 and names Ms Mciver at the sole tenant, although it is accepted that Mr Wallace lived at the property from the outset.
The second was executed on 19 February 2023 and names both Ms Mciver and Mr Wallace as tenants. Mr Wallace disputed that he had ever signed a tenancy agreement, said that he had never seen one, and said that if his signature appeared on the later tenancy agreement it must have been forged.
I adjourned the second hearing and made orders as follows:
Following my orders the landlord provided a copy of the second tenancy agreement to Mr Wallace as ordered, and amended their claim to include a claim for methamphetamine contamination. Mr Wallace did not file any evidence disputing that he was in fact a party to the later tenancy agreement. Which tenancy agreement (and time period) does the landlord’s claim related to?
This claim has been filed against Mr Wallace and Ms Mciver jointly. I therefore find that it only relates to the later tenancy agreement executed on 23 February 2023.
If the landlord has additional claims against Ms Mciver for the earlier period (and I do not understand that to be the case) then they will have to file a separate claim against Ms Mciver in relation to that tenancy agreement.

Who are the tenants?

I am satisfied that the landlord provided Mr Wallace with a copy of the tenancy agreement as ordered. At the hearing Ms Wang explained that she clearly remembered Mr Wallace signing the agreement.
Mr Wallace was given the opportunity to file evidence disputing that he signed the agreement but has not done so. I therefore accept that the signature on the tenancy agreement is the signature of Mr Wallace and that he is bound by the agreement. That means that he will be jointly and severally liable together with Ms Mciver for any breaches in relation to this tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 11 July 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. All of the arrears and water rates claimed were incurred during the period of this tenancy.

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 tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided photos following the end of the tenancy which show that the property was left in a filthy condition with an enormous amount of rubbish throughout the entire house (piled up in every room including the toilet), and in the garage and garden.
The landlord provided the following invoices for the cleaning and rubbish removal: a. Econowaste collection service dated 19 July 2023 for $385.00 b. Econowaste collection service dated 24 July 2023 for $385.00 c. Econowaste excess waste charges (residual waste) dated 31 July 2023 for $79.35 d. Greenacres commercial cleaning and sorting rubbish dated 3 August 2003 for $2,162.00 e. Jim’s Mowing Ltd Indoor cleaning and rubbish removal (labour) dated 4 September 2003 $1,696.25 f. Jim’s rubbish bin hire and dumping cost dated 4 September 2023 for $991.41
Although the amount claimed for cleaning and rubbish removal is high, having reviewed the evidence I am of the view that given the condition of the property and the vast amounts of rubbish left behind the amount claimed is reasonable. The amount of time claimed and labour costs ($40.00 per hour for professional cleaners) is reasonable. The amounts ordered are proved.
The tenants did not return the keys. The landlord provided an invoice from Stone Locksmith in the amount of $155.25 to change the lock. This amount is reasonable and the amount ordered is proved.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord also claimed for the cost of a letterbox which they claimed was missing but I was not provided with before/after photos proving the damage (or absence of a letterbox) and so do not find this claim proved.
Although the landlord had amended their claim to include a claim for methamphetamine contamination this claim was withdrawn at the hearing.
Because Excel Property Management Limited as agent for Yaoguan Cheng and Yayuan Zheng has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression and the tenants were not entitled to such an order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4615574 — net $6,161.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 July 2023	$2,229.26	Rent arrears to 11 July 2023
Water rates	$457.48	Water rates
Cleaning, carpet cleaning and rubbish removal	$3,858.25	Cleaning, carpet cleaning and rubbish removal
Skip bin fees and remainder of rubbish removal	$1,840.76	Skip bin fees and remainder of rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement: replace front door lock	$155.25	Lock/key replacement: replace front door lock
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,161.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,161.44

Order

Simone Wendy Mciver and Clint Robert Wallace must pay Excel Property Management Limited as agent for Yaoguan Cheng and Yayuan Zheng $6,161.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5608551-002) to Excel Property Management Limited As Agent For Yaoguan Cheng And Yayuan Zheng immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was held by phone. The landlord was represented by Ms Wang. Mr Wallace attended. The call placed to Ms Mciver went to voicemail. I am satisfied that Ms Mciver received notice of the hearing and so the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Onus of proof and evidence
This is the landlord’s claim and so the landlord bears the onus of proving their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).
For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence filed and presented at the hearing of this matter but the parties should be assured that I have carefully considered all of evidence in reaching my decision. Previous hearings
At the first phone hearing of this matter on 9 August 2023 Mr Wallace appeared by phone but the call to Ms Mciver went to voicemail. Mr Wallace agreed to meet the landlord at the property to discuss end of the tenancy matters including cleaning and rubbish removal. At the time it appeared that the parties might be able to informally resolve all issues between them.
At the second phone hearing of this matter on 20 September 2023 Mr Wallace appeared by phone but the call to Ms Mciver again went to voicemail. The landlord explained that Mr Wallace had not met her at the property as agreed and that she wanted to proceed with the claim and to amend the claim to include a claim for methamphetamine contamination.
At the second hearing however Mr Wallace disputed that he was in fact a tenant and said that he should not have been named as a party.
On reviewing the file during the second hearing I noted that there were in fact two tenancy agreements for the period during which Ms Mciver and Mr Wallace lived at the property.
The first was executed on 26 July 2017 and names Ms Mciver at the sole tenant, although it is accepted that Mr Wallace lived at the property from the outset.
The second was executed on 19 February 2023 and names both Ms Mciver and Mr Wallace as tenants. Mr Wallace disputed that he had ever signed a tenancy agreement, said that he had never seen one, and said that if his signature appeared on the later tenancy agreement it must have been forged.
I adjourned the second hearing and made orders as follows:
Following my orders the landlord provided a copy of the second tenancy agreement to Mr Wallace as ordered, and amended their claim to include a claim for methamphetamine contamination. Mr Wallace did not file any evidence disputing that he was in fact a party to the later tenancy agreement. Which tenancy agreement (and time period) does the landlord’s claim related to?
This claim has been filed against Mr Wallace and Ms Mciver jointly. I therefore find that it only relates to the later tenancy agreement executed on 23 February 2023.
If the landlord has additional claims against Ms Mciver for the earlier period (and I do not understand that to be the case) then they will have to file a separate claim against Ms Mciver in relation to that tenancy agreement.

Who are the tenants?

I am satisfied that the landlord provided Mr Wallace with a copy of the tenancy agreement as ordered. At the hearing Ms Wang explained that she clearly remembered Mr Wallace signing the agreement.
Mr Wallace was given the opportunity to file evidence disputing that he signed the agreement but has not done so. I therefore accept that the signature on the tenancy agreement is the signature of Mr Wallace and that he is bound by the agreement. That means that he will be jointly and severally liable together with Ms Mciver for any breaches in relation to this tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 11 July 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. All of the arrears and water rates claimed were incurred during the period of this tenancy.

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 tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided photos following the end of the tenancy which show that the property was left in a filthy condition with an enormous amount of rubbish throughout the entire house (piled up in every room including the toilet), and in the garage and garden.
The landlord provided the following invoices for the cleaning and rubbish removal: a. Econowaste collection service dated 19 July 2023 for $385.00 b. Econowaste collection service dated 24 July 2023 for $385.00 c. Econowaste excess waste charges (residual waste) dated 31 July 2023 for $79.35 d. Greenacres commercial cleaning and sorting rubbish dated 3 August 2003 for $2,162.00 e. Jim’s Mowing Ltd Indoor cleaning and rubbish removal (labour) dated 4 September 2003 $1,696.25 f. Jim’s rubbish bin hire and dumping cost dated 4 September 2023 for $991.41
Although the amount claimed for cleaning and rubbish removal is high, having reviewed the evidence I am of the view that given the condition of the property and the vast amounts of rubbish left behind the amount claimed is reasonable. The amount of time claimed and labour costs ($40.00 per hour for professional cleaners) is reasonable. The amounts ordered are proved.
The tenants did not return the keys. The landlord provided an invoice from Stone Locksmith in the amount of $155.25 to change the lock. This amount is reasonable and the amount ordered is proved.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord also claimed for the cost of a letterbox which they claimed was missing but I was not provided with before/after photos proving the damage (or absence of a letterbox) and so do not find this claim proved.
Although the landlord had amended their claim to include a claim for methamphetamine contamination this claim was withdrawn at the hearing.
Because Excel Property Management Limited as agent for Yaoguan Cheng and Yayuan Zheng has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression and the tenants were not entitled to such an order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4615574 — Rent arrears at 7A Laser Place, Bayview, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4615574 — Rent arrears at 7A Laser Place, Bayview, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Who are the tenants?

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Who are the tenants?

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions