What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4633969 about?

The tribunal order states: Berrah Wright and Urima Willem Toelupe to pay [The landlord/s] $2,040.52 from

How much money was awarded in case 4633969?

Cleaning: $368.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawn Mowing: $263.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $382.83 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,006.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4633969?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4633969?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9605315-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4633969 about?

The tribunal order states: Berrah Wright and Urima Willem Toelupe to pay [The landlord/s] $2,040.52 from

How much money was awarded in case 4633969?

Cleaning: $368.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawn Mowing: $263.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $382.83 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,006.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4633969?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4633969?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9605315-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4633969 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4633969 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4633969 — net $2,040.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$382.83	Rent arrears
Pest control and carpet cleaning	$368.00	Pest control and carpet cleaning
Lawn mowing	$263.00	Lawn mowing
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$1,006.25	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,040.52
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,040.52

Claims and awards for application 4633969 — net $2,040.52 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $382.83
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Pest control and carpet cleaning

Amount: $368.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Pest control and carpet cleaning

Lawn mowing

Amount: $263.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawn mowing

Cleaning and rubbish removal

Amount: $1,006.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning and rubbish removal

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Berrah Wright and Urima Willem Toelupe to pay [The landlord/s] $2,040.52 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the parties as follows: $2,040.52 to [The landlord/s], and $639.48 to Berrah Wright and Urima Willem Toelupe to be paid immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord.
Both parties appeared at the hearing today. DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears$382.83 Pest control and carpet cleaning$368.00 Lawn mowing$263.00 Cleaning and rubbish removal$1,006.25 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$2,040.52 Bond$2,040.52$639.48

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement has been provided. This records the two co-tenants as Berrah Wright and Urima Willem Toelupe. The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy between 27 September 2022 and 26 September 2023. However the tenancy ended on 19 May 2023 following an eviction of the tenants.
I record that the hearing was challenging, because the landlord had not supplied photographs relied on as evidence when the claim was filed, as would normally be expected. The landlord had emailed photographs to the Tribunal on the morning of the hearings. The tenants had not seen that email, and neither had I. The tenants needed to review those photographs on the landlords laptop during the hearing. Also during the hearing the landlord emailed the pre-tenancy inspection photographs which were some 176 pages of photographs, which again the tenants needed to review at the hearing.
Evidence of this nature must be submitted with the application so it can be properly served on the tenants in advance of the hearing, and to allow the adjudicator review the evidence prior to commencing the hearing.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

RENT ARREARS

The landlord has applied for an order that the tenant pay rent arrears of $382.83. The tenants agree that this money is owed.
The landlord has provided the Tribunal with a rent ledger. I have no reason to consider that record to be incorrect.
The landlord has established that the tenant is in arrears to the amount claimed, and that is ordered in full.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
In relation to these claims, the tenants say that when they took the tenancy over, the premises were in very poor condition, there was no hot water for five days, and they needed to undertake cleaning of the premises.
The landlord disputes that the house was unclean at the start of the tenancy (as the tenants claim), but did note that the landlord sent someone to the house to undertake curtain cleaning. The landlord also says that they sent a cleaner to the house on four occasions.
I record that having considered the pre-tenancy photographs, my impression was that the tenancy was reasonably clean and tidy. There were some chattels left for the tenant, but they seemed in good useable order. I do not consider the photographs at the end of the tenancy showed a reasonably clean and tidy property.
The landlord has claimed for carpet cleaning and pest control costs of $368.00. The invoice provided from Quick Property Services Limited records that pest control for fleas an cockroaches was undertaken, as well as carpet cleaning.
The landlord states that pest control was undertaken because the tenants had a pet, in breach of the tenancy agreement. The landlord states she had caught a flea at the premises, and the incoming tenant also complained of fleas. The landlord says the premises smelt like dogs. The landlord said that carpet needed to be cleaned because of the dog smell, including a strong urine smell.
The tenant said that that there was a dog but it was well trained. The tenants dispute this claim.
On balance I accept the evidence of the landlord that the premises had an animal smell, and there were an issue with fleas. I consider this claim is established and these costs are ordered.
The landlord has also claimed for general cleaning and rubbish removal costs totalling $1,006.25. That is supported by an invoice from Renovations NZ Ltd (which included skip bin hire of $320.00).
The tenants dispute that the items in the skip bin are theirs, they accept there is a lawn mower there that is theirs, but they dispute the other items in the bin, they consider some items were there at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord maintains that the rubbish removal was in relation to the tenants goods, and considers that the tenants had a fair opportunity to remove rubbish.
On balance I consider the items in the skip are likely to be the tenants items left at the tenancy. There were extensive pre-tenancy photographs I have reviewed, and that did not support rubbish on the premises at the start of the tenancy. The cleaning and rubbish removal claim is established and ordered in full.
The landlord seeks an order of $263.00 for lawn mowing charges at the premises. That is supported by an invoice from A1 Plus Lawns Limited.
The tenants agree with this claim which is ordered in full.

LOCK AND KEY REPLACEMENT

The landlord has claimed compensation for lock and key replacement. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenants responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.
In this case the landlord states that the keys were not returned at the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks the lock and key replacement costs. The invoice records the charges incurred as $254.44.
The landlord states that the tenancy was returned to the landlord following an eviction, and says that the locks were replaced within that context. The landlords representative at the hearing says she was not present at the eviction, but says the keys were not returned.
The tenants say that the keys were given to the person who undertook the eviction, and they were strong in that view.
On balance I am not persuaded that the tenants did not return the keys at the time of the eviction. I have received no evidence from any person present at the time the eviction took place, and cannot see any basis not to accept the tenants evidence that the keys were handed over. While it is common for locks to be replaced with an eviction there is no legal obligation to do so. All the tenant is required to do is hand over the keys, and the evidence falls short of proving that they did not do that. This claim is dismissed.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been mostly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has applied for name suppression which is granted given the landlord has been substantially successful in the proceeding.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4633969 — net $2,040.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$382.83	Rent arrears
Pest control and carpet cleaning	$368.00	Pest control and carpet cleaning
Lawn mowing	$263.00	Lawn mowing
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$1,006.25	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,040.52
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,040.52

Claims and awards for application 4633969 — net $2,040.52 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $382.83
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Pest control and carpet cleaning

Amount: $368.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Pest control and carpet cleaning

Lawn mowing

Amount: $263.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawn mowing

Cleaning and rubbish removal

Amount: $1,006.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning and rubbish removal

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Berrah Wright and Urima Willem Toelupe to pay [The landlord/s] $2,040.52 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the parties as follows: $2,040.52 to [The landlord/s], and $639.48 to Berrah Wright and Urima Willem Toelupe to be paid immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord.
Both parties appeared at the hearing today. DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears$382.83 Pest control and carpet cleaning$368.00 Lawn mowing$263.00 Cleaning and rubbish removal$1,006.25 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$2,040.52 Bond$2,040.52$639.48

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement has been provided. This records the two co-tenants as Berrah Wright and Urima Willem Toelupe. The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy between 27 September 2022 and 26 September 2023. However the tenancy ended on 19 May 2023 following an eviction of the tenants.
I record that the hearing was challenging, because the landlord had not supplied photographs relied on as evidence when the claim was filed, as would normally be expected. The landlord had emailed photographs to the Tribunal on the morning of the hearings. The tenants had not seen that email, and neither had I. The tenants needed to review those photographs on the landlords laptop during the hearing. Also during the hearing the landlord emailed the pre-tenancy inspection photographs which were some 176 pages of photographs, which again the tenants needed to review at the hearing.
Evidence of this nature must be submitted with the application so it can be properly served on the tenants in advance of the hearing, and to allow the adjudicator review the evidence prior to commencing the hearing.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

RENT ARREARS

The landlord has applied for an order that the tenant pay rent arrears of $382.83. The tenants agree that this money is owed.
The landlord has provided the Tribunal with a rent ledger. I have no reason to consider that record to be incorrect.
The landlord has established that the tenant is in arrears to the amount claimed, and that is ordered in full.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
In relation to these claims, the tenants say that when they took the tenancy over, the premises were in very poor condition, there was no hot water for five days, and they needed to undertake cleaning of the premises.
The landlord disputes that the house was unclean at the start of the tenancy (as the tenants claim), but did note that the landlord sent someone to the house to undertake curtain cleaning. The landlord also says that they sent a cleaner to the house on four occasions.
I record that having considered the pre-tenancy photographs, my impression was that the tenancy was reasonably clean and tidy. There were some chattels left for the tenant, but they seemed in good useable order. I do not consider the photographs at the end of the tenancy showed a reasonably clean and tidy property.
The landlord has claimed for carpet cleaning and pest control costs of $368.00. The invoice provided from Quick Property Services Limited records that pest control for fleas an cockroaches was undertaken, as well as carpet cleaning.
The landlord states that pest control was undertaken because the tenants had a pet, in breach of the tenancy agreement. The landlord states she had caught a flea at the premises, and the incoming tenant also complained of fleas. The landlord says the premises smelt like dogs. The landlord said that carpet needed to be cleaned because of the dog smell, including a strong urine smell.
The tenant said that that there was a dog but it was well trained. The tenants dispute this claim.
On balance I accept the evidence of the landlord that the premises had an animal smell, and there were an issue with fleas. I consider this claim is established and these costs are ordered.
The landlord has also claimed for general cleaning and rubbish removal costs totalling $1,006.25. That is supported by an invoice from Renovations NZ Ltd (which included skip bin hire of $320.00).
The tenants dispute that the items in the skip bin are theirs, they accept there is a lawn mower there that is theirs, but they dispute the other items in the bin, they consider some items were there at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord maintains that the rubbish removal was in relation to the tenants goods, and considers that the tenants had a fair opportunity to remove rubbish.
On balance I consider the items in the skip are likely to be the tenants items left at the tenancy. There were extensive pre-tenancy photographs I have reviewed, and that did not support rubbish on the premises at the start of the tenancy. The cleaning and rubbish removal claim is established and ordered in full.
The landlord seeks an order of $263.00 for lawn mowing charges at the premises. That is supported by an invoice from A1 Plus Lawns Limited.
The tenants agree with this claim which is ordered in full.

LOCK AND KEY REPLACEMENT

The landlord has claimed compensation for lock and key replacement. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenants responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.
In this case the landlord states that the keys were not returned at the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks the lock and key replacement costs. The invoice records the charges incurred as $254.44.
The landlord states that the tenancy was returned to the landlord following an eviction, and says that the locks were replaced within that context. The landlords representative at the hearing says she was not present at the eviction, but says the keys were not returned.
The tenants say that the keys were given to the person who undertook the eviction, and they were strong in that view.
On balance I am not persuaded that the tenants did not return the keys at the time of the eviction. I have received no evidence from any person present at the time the eviction took place, and cannot see any basis not to accept the tenants evidence that the keys were handed over. While it is common for locks to be replaced with an eviction there is no legal obligation to do so. All the tenant is required to do is hand over the keys, and the evidence falls short of proving that they did not do that. This claim is dismissed.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been mostly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has applied for name suppression which is granted given the landlord has been substantially successful in the proceeding.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4633969 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4633969 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

RENT ARREARS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

LOCK AND KEY REPLACEMENT

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

RENT ARREARS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

LOCK AND KEY REPLACEMENT

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions