What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4633849?

The tribunal order states: Diane Te Aroha Teipo must pay Quinovic Property Management Limited as Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4633849?

Cleaning: $420.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,807.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $311.94 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $157.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4633849?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4633849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9683804-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4633849?

The tribunal order states: Diane Te Aroha Teipo must pay Quinovic Property Management Limited as Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4633849?

Cleaning: $420.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,807.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $311.94 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $157.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4633849?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4633849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9683804-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 23 The Glade South, Pukekohe, Pukekohe Tenancy Tribunal Case 4633849 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4633849 — net $3,705.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 July 2023	$3,807.14	Rent arrears to 11 July 2023
Cleaning	$287.50	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$420.50	Carpet Cleaning
Water rates	$157.70	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$311.94	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,705.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,705.22

Order

Diane Te Aroha Teipo must pay Quinovic Property Management Limited as Agent for Rishabh Trivedy $3,705.22 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,300.00 (5135525-007) to Quinovic Property Management Limited as Agent for Rishabh Trivedy immediately.

Reasons

Ms Daly appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 20 April 2023 and was for a fixed term to end on 01 December 2023. On 25 May 2023, there was a change of landlord. The tenant gave notice to end the tenancy. The notice was accepted by the landlord, and the tenancy ended on 11 July 2023. The landlord did not seek any costs associated with re letting or rent in lieu. On 19 July 2023, the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

How much is owed for rent, water, and wastewater?

Ms Daly states that at the time of the change of landlord there were existing rent arrears of $1,097.00. The previous landlord did not keep accurate records. While it is likely that the tenant was in arrears, without accurate records it is not possible to establish the extent of any arrears to the required standard. The rent records kept by the present landlord are accurate, and show, starting from a zero balance, that from 25 May 2023 to the end of the tenancy, the tenant missed five of the weekly rent payments of $650.00 and failed to make the final part weekly payment of $557.14. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the rent arrears from 25 May 2023 to the end of the tenancy were $3,807.14.
The landlord has produced two water and wastewater invoices for the period 13 April 2023 to 16 May 2023 and 16 May 2023 to 13 June 2023. The total water and wastewater usage charge for the period is $177.00. The period claimed covers 61 days. I note that the tenancy commenced on 20 April 2023. The daily combined water and wastewater usage for that 61-day period averages out at $2.90 per day. On that basis, I deduct seven days at the rate of $2.90 per day from the amount claimed and award the landlord $157.70 for water and wastewater usage.

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

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, including the carpets, and the grounds, and failed to remove all rubbish. The landlord is claiming $287.50 for cleaning, $311.94 for rubbish removal, $420.50 for carpet cleaning, and $175.00 for grounds maintenance.
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) of the Act.
The property has three bedrooms, an open plan lounge / living / kitchen, two bathrooms, two toilets, laundry, and a garage. The landlord has produced photographs showing the state of cleanliness of the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord states some areas of the property have not been left reasonably clean, namely, the inside of the windows, window tracks and sills, skirting boards and some walls.
Based on the photographs, I accept that submission. The full property cleaning cost was $690.00. The landlord is seeking a portion. I am satisfied that the amount claimed is reasonable. The tenant also left rubbish in the garage, a red lid general waste bin, and yellow lid recycling bin, both of which were full to overflowing. It appears that the recycling bin contained general waste. The amount claimed to remove the rubbish is reasonable and awarded in full.
Concerning the claim for grounds maintenance. There is no evidence of the condition of the grounds at the commencement of the tenancy. I am unable to make an assessment as to whether they are the same, better, or worse than at the commencement. There is insufficient evidence, and the claim is dismissed.
The tenant was allowed to keep animals at the property which included cats and a dog. There is a term of the agreement that in return for consent, the tenant agreed at the end of the tenancy to have the carpet professionally cleaned and treated for fleas. The landlord states this was not done by the tenant, and that the property smelled of dog.
Terms of an agreement which exceed an obligation under the Act, are unenforceable against tenants unless the Tribunal considers there are special circumstances. See section 11 of the Act.
A condition that the tenant arrange professional carpet cleaning and flea treatment at the end of the tenancy in return for being allowed to keep cats, and a dog, is in my opinion reasonable, and a special circumstance, and on that basis, I award the amount claimed.
The final claim concerns liability for a locksmith after hours callout fee of $200.00. On 10 July 2023, neighbours called the landlord reporting the security alarm at the property had been set off. The landlord called the tenant who advised that they would “go back” and turn it off. The landlord speculates that the tenant was already out of the area. Several hours passed. That evening the landlord visited the property. Having determined that the tenant was not at the property and forming the view that this was an emergency, the landlord called a locksmith to gain entry and silence the alarm.
I am satisfied that the landlord was, in the circumstances, entitled to enter the property and acted appropriately. See section 48(1)(b) and (2)(a) of the Act. The issue is whether the tenant is liable for any cost incurred. Ms Daly states that the previous landlord did not provide the present landlord with keys, and further was at the material time unable to deliver them to the landlord. Ms Daly agreed that had the landlord had the keys the cost would have been unnecessary.
An award of damages may follow a breach of the agreement or provision of the Act. The only possible breach is under section 40(2)(c), which provides that a tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the neighbours. Arguably, the tenant by not returning to the property to silence the alarm within a reasonable time frame may constitute a breach. However, there is insufficient evidence to make that determination. In this case I make no award for compensation. Costs
Because Quinovic Property Management Limited as Agent for Rishabh Trivedy has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Although the landlord has been substantially successful, they do not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4633849 — net $3,705.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 July 2023	$3,807.14	Rent arrears to 11 July 2023
Cleaning	$287.50	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$420.50	Carpet Cleaning
Water rates	$157.70	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$311.94	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,705.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,705.22

Order

Diane Te Aroha Teipo must pay Quinovic Property Management Limited as Agent for Rishabh Trivedy $3,705.22 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,300.00 (5135525-007) to Quinovic Property Management Limited as Agent for Rishabh Trivedy immediately.

Reasons

Ms Daly appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 20 April 2023 and was for a fixed term to end on 01 December 2023. On 25 May 2023, there was a change of landlord. The tenant gave notice to end the tenancy. The notice was accepted by the landlord, and the tenancy ended on 11 July 2023. The landlord did not seek any costs associated with re letting or rent in lieu. On 19 July 2023, the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

How much is owed for rent, water, and wastewater?

Ms Daly states that at the time of the change of landlord there were existing rent arrears of $1,097.00. The previous landlord did not keep accurate records. While it is likely that the tenant was in arrears, without accurate records it is not possible to establish the extent of any arrears to the required standard. The rent records kept by the present landlord are accurate, and show, starting from a zero balance, that from 25 May 2023 to the end of the tenancy, the tenant missed five of the weekly rent payments of $650.00 and failed to make the final part weekly payment of $557.14. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the rent arrears from 25 May 2023 to the end of the tenancy were $3,807.14.
The landlord has produced two water and wastewater invoices for the period 13 April 2023 to 16 May 2023 and 16 May 2023 to 13 June 2023. The total water and wastewater usage charge for the period is $177.00. The period claimed covers 61 days. I note that the tenancy commenced on 20 April 2023. The daily combined water and wastewater usage for that 61-day period averages out at $2.90 per day. On that basis, I deduct seven days at the rate of $2.90 per day from the amount claimed and award the landlord $157.70 for water and wastewater usage.

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

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, including the carpets, and the grounds, and failed to remove all rubbish. The landlord is claiming $287.50 for cleaning, $311.94 for rubbish removal, $420.50 for carpet cleaning, and $175.00 for grounds maintenance.
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) of the Act.
The property has three bedrooms, an open plan lounge / living / kitchen, two bathrooms, two toilets, laundry, and a garage. The landlord has produced photographs showing the state of cleanliness of the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord states some areas of the property have not been left reasonably clean, namely, the inside of the windows, window tracks and sills, skirting boards and some walls.
Based on the photographs, I accept that submission. The full property cleaning cost was $690.00. The landlord is seeking a portion. I am satisfied that the amount claimed is reasonable. The tenant also left rubbish in the garage, a red lid general waste bin, and yellow lid recycling bin, both of which were full to overflowing. It appears that the recycling bin contained general waste. The amount claimed to remove the rubbish is reasonable and awarded in full.
Concerning the claim for grounds maintenance. There is no evidence of the condition of the grounds at the commencement of the tenancy. I am unable to make an assessment as to whether they are the same, better, or worse than at the commencement. There is insufficient evidence, and the claim is dismissed.
The tenant was allowed to keep animals at the property which included cats and a dog. There is a term of the agreement that in return for consent, the tenant agreed at the end of the tenancy to have the carpet professionally cleaned and treated for fleas. The landlord states this was not done by the tenant, and that the property smelled of dog.
Terms of an agreement which exceed an obligation under the Act, are unenforceable against tenants unless the Tribunal considers there are special circumstances. See section 11 of the Act.
A condition that the tenant arrange professional carpet cleaning and flea treatment at the end of the tenancy in return for being allowed to keep cats, and a dog, is in my opinion reasonable, and a special circumstance, and on that basis, I award the amount claimed.
The final claim concerns liability for a locksmith after hours callout fee of $200.00. On 10 July 2023, neighbours called the landlord reporting the security alarm at the property had been set off. The landlord called the tenant who advised that they would “go back” and turn it off. The landlord speculates that the tenant was already out of the area. Several hours passed. That evening the landlord visited the property. Having determined that the tenant was not at the property and forming the view that this was an emergency, the landlord called a locksmith to gain entry and silence the alarm.
I am satisfied that the landlord was, in the circumstances, entitled to enter the property and acted appropriately. See section 48(1)(b) and (2)(a) of the Act. The issue is whether the tenant is liable for any cost incurred. Ms Daly states that the previous landlord did not provide the present landlord with keys, and further was at the material time unable to deliver them to the landlord. Ms Daly agreed that had the landlord had the keys the cost would have been unnecessary.
An award of damages may follow a breach of the agreement or provision of the Act. The only possible breach is under section 40(2)(c), which provides that a tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the neighbours. Arguably, the tenant by not returning to the property to silence the alarm within a reasonable time frame may constitute a breach. However, there is insufficient evidence to make that determination. In this case I make no award for compensation. Costs
Because Quinovic Property Management Limited as Agent for Rishabh Trivedy has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Although the landlord has been substantially successful, they do not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4633849 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 23 The Glade South, Pukekohe, Pukekohe

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4633849 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 23 The Glade South, Pukekohe, Pukekohe

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent, water, and wastewater?

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, water, and wastewater?

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