What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4619129 about?

The tribunal order states: Nicole Reed must pay [The tenant] $720.44 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4619129?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Paid For The Period 29 June 202…: $700.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4619129?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4619129?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10202892-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4619129 about?

The tribunal order states: Nicole Reed must pay [The tenant] $720.44 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4619129?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Paid For The Period 29 June 202…: $700.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4619129?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4619129?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10202892-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

13A Hollywood Avenue, Titirangi, Auckland 0604 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4619129 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4619129 — net $720.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent paid for the period 29 June 2023 to 12 July 2023	$700.00	Rent paid for the period 29 June 2023 to 12 July 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$720.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$720.44

Order

Nicole Reed must pay [The tenant] $720.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by phone.
These are cross claims which relate to the tenancy of a small studio flat located underneath a standalone house. Background
Ms Reed was the original tenant of the studio flat which was located under a standalone house occupied by the owner. However she became a sub-landlord when she advertised the flat on Trademe market place and agreed to rent it to the tenant (who then became a sub-tenant). For the sake of simplicity I have simply referred to Ms Reed as “landlord” and [The tenant] as “tenant” in this decision.
The tenancy began amicably but ended after only four weeks after a dispute over payment of the bond. It is not necessary to recount the details of that dispute in this decision except to say that it led to Ms Reed advising [The tenant] by text that she intended to enter and take back possession of the tenancy. At that point it appears that both parties called the police. [The tenant] was not home at the time and returned on an urgent basis.
The police attended at approximately 11am on 29 June 2023. On the information provided to them the police determined that Ms Reed appeared to be the lawful occupier and so [The tenant] was asked to leave. He agreed to do so and was given a brief opportunity to do retrieve his possessions, although he was unable to transport his bed at that time.
On 5 July 2023 [The tenant] filed a claim for recovery of rent paid in advance in the amount of $700.00, compensation for his bed that he left behind, and refund of the filing fee.
A preliminary hearing was held in this matter to determine the matter of jurisdiction. Ms Reed said that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction because she and [The tenant] were flatmates. She said that the correct forum for resolution of their dispute was the Disputes Tribunal. [The tenant] said that he had always understood that he was a tenant and that at no stage were he and Ms Reed flatmates.
In a decision dated 6 November 2023 I determined that this was a landlord and tenant (not flatmates) dispute and that the Tribunal did have jurisdiction because: a. Ms Reed sent [The tenant] an email setting out the terms of the “Tenancy Agreement between [The tenant] Tenant and Nicole Reed Landlord”; b. [The tenant] was not simply paying a share of the rent, as a flatmate would normally do, but was in fact paying the same or more than Ms Reed had been paying the head-landlord, indicating a sub-tenancy; and c. The parties did not in fact share facilities and Ms Reed moved out and lived at a different location in her camper.
On 15 November 2023 Mr Reed then filed a claim in the Tribunal claiming that [The tenant] did not leave the property clean and tidy, did not removal all rubbish and damaged the property. She seeks compensation as follows: a. Plastering $2,000.00 b. Lock change $143.00 c. Cleaning fee $706.00 d. Rubbish removal, oven clean, blind clean $206.00 e. Security camera installation $99.00 Onus of proof and evidence
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil standards and expectations. This means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the ‘burden of proof’.
Normally independent witnesses, corroborating documents, reports and photographs are an important part of meeting this burden.
In adjudicating this matter I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim I must consider all of the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weight this evidence to decide what is more likely.
Ultimately if either party does not provide sufficient evidence to support their claim it must be dismissed.
For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence filed and given at the hearing but the parties can be assured that I have carefully considered all of the evidence in reaching my decision. The tenant’s claims
The tenancy effectively ended on the date the police attended and [The tenant] reluctantly left the property. It is not surprising that the police considered Ms Reed to be the lawful occupier of the studio flat as she was able to produce a written tenancy agreement and the police were not in a position to delve further into the legal position, which is ultimately the task of this Tribunal.
[The tenant] was in fact a lawful sub-tenant (regardless of whether or not the bond had been paid) and was entitled to possession. He did however agree to leave the tenancy, on the advice of the police, to diffuse the situation. Rent
[The tenant] produced evidence showing payment of two weeks rent in advance only the day before, on 28 June 2023, for the period 29 June 2023 to 12 July 2023. Ms Reed accepted that this payment had been made. There has been an overpayment of rent as [The tenant] paid two weeks’ rent in advance but effectively had his tenancy immediately terminated. He is entitled to recovery of the overpayment. I order compensation accordingly Bed
[The tenant] sought compensation of $1,000 for his bed which he said was brand new.
Ultimately I do not find this claim proven. Ms Reed provided copies of text messages dated 30 June, 2 July, 4 August and 10 August 2023 in which [The tenant] was offered the opportunity to pick up his mattress but did not do so. The landlord’s claims Cleaning and rubbish removal
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Ms Reed claimed that when she took back possession of the flat there was a sink full of dishes and rotting food, urine on the floor in the bathroom, rubbish strewn about and an oven tray of burned food in the oven. She provided photos in support of her claims. She said that she in fact did the cleaning and rubbish removal herself (and has claimed what she considers to be a reasonable rate).
[The tenant] said that the flat was not particularly clean when he moved in, that he did not use the oven at any stage and had never seen the tray of burned food in the oven, and that he was told to leave straight away and had no opportunity to clean. He said that he was only at the property for four weeks and spent a lot of his time tidying it up and tending to the small outside garden.
I do not find this claim proven. Despite being a lawful tenant [The tenant] was required to vacate the property with virtually no notice. He only had a brief opportunity to uplift his possessions. A tenant cannot possibly leave a property clean and tidy and remove all rubbish if they are not given any opportunity to do so. Damage
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.
Ms Reed claims that when she took back possession there were various dings and marks on the walls. She provided photos of the marks. I was told at the hearing that despite the quote provided the owner of the property had replastered the walls themselves without charge (Ms Reed paying for materials).
[The tenant] said that he did not cause damage and that the dings and marks on the wall must have been present when he moved in. He said a mirror and a plant were placed in that area so they were not visible.
I do not find this claim proven. The onus is on Ms Reed to prove that the damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy. There were no photos of the condition at the start of the tenancy and so I am unable to make this finding. Other items
Ms Reed also claimed for various security improvements to the property, being new locks and a security camera (as recommended by the police).
Ms Reed claimed that the locks had to be changed because [The tenant] had not returned the key. [The tenant] insisted that he had done so, leaving it inside when he left the property. There was no other evidence on this issue and so I am unable to find it more likely than not that [The tenant] did not return the key.
The claim for changing the locks is therefore dismissed.
Ms Reed claimed that the police recommended that a security camera be installed. This is of course a sensible recommendation but there is no legal basis on which to hold [The tenant] liable for the cost of installation.
The claim for the installation of the security camera is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
As the substantially successful party [The tenant] is entitled to an order for name suppression pursuant to section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and I make an order for suppression accordingly.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4619129 — net $720.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent paid for the period 29 June 2023 to 12 July 2023	$700.00	Rent paid for the period 29 June 2023 to 12 July 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$720.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$720.44

Order

Nicole Reed must pay [The tenant] $720.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by phone.
These are cross claims which relate to the tenancy of a small studio flat located underneath a standalone house. Background
Ms Reed was the original tenant of the studio flat which was located under a standalone house occupied by the owner. However she became a sub-landlord when she advertised the flat on Trademe market place and agreed to rent it to the tenant (who then became a sub-tenant). For the sake of simplicity I have simply referred to Ms Reed as “landlord” and [The tenant] as “tenant” in this decision.
The tenancy began amicably but ended after only four weeks after a dispute over payment of the bond. It is not necessary to recount the details of that dispute in this decision except to say that it led to Ms Reed advising [The tenant] by text that she intended to enter and take back possession of the tenancy. At that point it appears that both parties called the police. [The tenant] was not home at the time and returned on an urgent basis.
The police attended at approximately 11am on 29 June 2023. On the information provided to them the police determined that Ms Reed appeared to be the lawful occupier and so [The tenant] was asked to leave. He agreed to do so and was given a brief opportunity to do retrieve his possessions, although he was unable to transport his bed at that time.
On 5 July 2023 [The tenant] filed a claim for recovery of rent paid in advance in the amount of $700.00, compensation for his bed that he left behind, and refund of the filing fee.
A preliminary hearing was held in this matter to determine the matter of jurisdiction. Ms Reed said that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction because she and [The tenant] were flatmates. She said that the correct forum for resolution of their dispute was the Disputes Tribunal. [The tenant] said that he had always understood that he was a tenant and that at no stage were he and Ms Reed flatmates.
In a decision dated 6 November 2023 I determined that this was a landlord and tenant (not flatmates) dispute and that the Tribunal did have jurisdiction because: a. Ms Reed sent [The tenant] an email setting out the terms of the “Tenancy Agreement between [The tenant] Tenant and Nicole Reed Landlord”; b. [The tenant] was not simply paying a share of the rent, as a flatmate would normally do, but was in fact paying the same or more than Ms Reed had been paying the head-landlord, indicating a sub-tenancy; and c. The parties did not in fact share facilities and Ms Reed moved out and lived at a different location in her camper.
On 15 November 2023 Mr Reed then filed a claim in the Tribunal claiming that [The tenant] did not leave the property clean and tidy, did not removal all rubbish and damaged the property. She seeks compensation as follows: a. Plastering $2,000.00 b. Lock change $143.00 c. Cleaning fee $706.00 d. Rubbish removal, oven clean, blind clean $206.00 e. Security camera installation $99.00 Onus of proof and evidence
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil standards and expectations. This means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the ‘burden of proof’.
Normally independent witnesses, corroborating documents, reports and photographs are an important part of meeting this burden.
In adjudicating this matter I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim I must consider all of the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weight this evidence to decide what is more likely.
Ultimately if either party does not provide sufficient evidence to support their claim it must be dismissed.
For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence filed and given at the hearing but the parties can be assured that I have carefully considered all of the evidence in reaching my decision. The tenant’s claims
The tenancy effectively ended on the date the police attended and [The tenant] reluctantly left the property. It is not surprising that the police considered Ms Reed to be the lawful occupier of the studio flat as she was able to produce a written tenancy agreement and the police were not in a position to delve further into the legal position, which is ultimately the task of this Tribunal.
[The tenant] was in fact a lawful sub-tenant (regardless of whether or not the bond had been paid) and was entitled to possession. He did however agree to leave the tenancy, on the advice of the police, to diffuse the situation. Rent
[The tenant] produced evidence showing payment of two weeks rent in advance only the day before, on 28 June 2023, for the period 29 June 2023 to 12 July 2023. Ms Reed accepted that this payment had been made. There has been an overpayment of rent as [The tenant] paid two weeks’ rent in advance but effectively had his tenancy immediately terminated. He is entitled to recovery of the overpayment. I order compensation accordingly Bed
[The tenant] sought compensation of $1,000 for his bed which he said was brand new.
Ultimately I do not find this claim proven. Ms Reed provided copies of text messages dated 30 June, 2 July, 4 August and 10 August 2023 in which [The tenant] was offered the opportunity to pick up his mattress but did not do so. The landlord’s claims Cleaning and rubbish removal
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Ms Reed claimed that when she took back possession of the flat there was a sink full of dishes and rotting food, urine on the floor in the bathroom, rubbish strewn about and an oven tray of burned food in the oven. She provided photos in support of her claims. She said that she in fact did the cleaning and rubbish removal herself (and has claimed what she considers to be a reasonable rate).
[The tenant] said that the flat was not particularly clean when he moved in, that he did not use the oven at any stage and had never seen the tray of burned food in the oven, and that he was told to leave straight away and had no opportunity to clean. He said that he was only at the property for four weeks and spent a lot of his time tidying it up and tending to the small outside garden.
I do not find this claim proven. Despite being a lawful tenant [The tenant] was required to vacate the property with virtually no notice. He only had a brief opportunity to uplift his possessions. A tenant cannot possibly leave a property clean and tidy and remove all rubbish if they are not given any opportunity to do so. Damage
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.
Ms Reed claims that when she took back possession there were various dings and marks on the walls. She provided photos of the marks. I was told at the hearing that despite the quote provided the owner of the property had replastered the walls themselves without charge (Ms Reed paying for materials).
[The tenant] said that he did not cause damage and that the dings and marks on the wall must have been present when he moved in. He said a mirror and a plant were placed in that area so they were not visible.
I do not find this claim proven. The onus is on Ms Reed to prove that the damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy. There were no photos of the condition at the start of the tenancy and so I am unable to make this finding. Other items
Ms Reed also claimed for various security improvements to the property, being new locks and a security camera (as recommended by the police).
Ms Reed claimed that the locks had to be changed because [The tenant] had not returned the key. [The tenant] insisted that he had done so, leaving it inside when he left the property. There was no other evidence on this issue and so I am unable to find it more likely than not that [The tenant] did not return the key.
The claim for changing the locks is therefore dismissed.
Ms Reed claimed that the police recommended that a security camera be installed. This is of course a sensible recommendation but there is no legal basis on which to hold [The tenant] liable for the cost of installation.
The claim for the installation of the security camera is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
As the substantially successful party [The tenant] is entitled to an order for name suppression pursuant to section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and I make an order for suppression accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4619129 — Tenancy dispute at 13A Hollywood Avenue, Titirangi, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4619129 — Tenancy dispute at 13A Hollywood Avenue, Titirangi, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions