What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4640489 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Inspire Property Management Limited $27.39 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4640489?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $47.83 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4640489?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4640489?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9675475-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4640489 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Inspire Property Management Limited $27.39 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4640489?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $47.83 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4640489?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4640489?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9675475-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

120 Great North Road, Winton, Winton 9720 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4640489 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4640489 — net $27.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Light bulbs/batteries	$47.83		Light bulbs/batteries
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$47.83	$20.44
Net award	$27.39
Bond	$1,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.39

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Inspire Property Management Limited $27.39 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Inspire Property Management Limited: $27.39 [The tenant/s]: $1,452.61

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. Ms Jeanette Overend represented the landlord.
The tenants applied for the return of their bond.
The landlord counterclaimed for compensation, to be paid via the bond.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”

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 must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claimed the tenant did not leave the outside of premises reasonably clean and tidy. Light bulbs required replacing. Outside
In support of the claim the landlord provided entry and exit photos and an invoice. The landlord sought $552.00 based on an invoice from N&C Roberts.
The landlord did not volunteer that the invoice was from the owners. She had mentioned the people doing the work are not people they frequently use for such tasks. Later, I questioned her regarding the same name appearing on the invoice as being the same as the owner recorded in the tenancy agreement. She then confirmed the owners had done the gardening. That in itself is not fatal but it is concerning to have the invoice include $72.00 for GST when no GST number appeared on the invoice as required. Given the owners are named individuals, it is considered more than likely they are not GST registered.
The tenants further submitted the premises were not relet but were prepared and marketed for sale (this was confirmed by the landlord who advised it was later withdrawn and is now relet). That merits some consideration of the extent of the gardening effort (16 hours claimed) that may have been required to return the premises as expected of a tenant, versus how an owner may want to present it for sale. An extra effort for marketing purposes may be a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
A final concern regarding this claim was raised by the tenants. One photo presented by the landlord as showing the outdoor condition at the end of the tenancy was believed to be a cropped version of a prior photo taken during the tenancy. They believed this to be so as their dog run was in the original photo but cropped out in the photo later presented by the landlord as evidence. The landlord accepted at the hearing that the dog run had been removed at the end of the tenancy. The removal of the dog run was further confirmed as the parties had discussed the requirement for resowing of that grass area (damaged by the run) at the end of the tenancy. No actual claim was made for that.
I provided for the tenants to submit the original photo after the hearing. The landlord was to be copied and given the opportunity to respond. I received the photo from the tenant but no response from the landlord has been received.
Based on the shadows and general condition shown in both, I accept the two photos (see below, cropped photo on the left and original photo on the right) are the same. The mistake may have been unintentional as another photo was provided of the area after the run was removed
There were several concerns regarding this claim and the supporting evidence for both effort and cost. The landlord has failed to evidence the claim to the required standard. The claim is dismissed. Lightbulbs
The landlord had to replace light bulbs at a cost of $47.83. The tenants did not dispute that and accepted the cost. Application filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with their claim I have reimbursed their filing fee.
The landlord is to carry its cost of filing. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant requested suppression in its application. As it has been substantially successful, tenant name suppression is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4640489 — net $27.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Light bulbs/batteries	$47.83		Light bulbs/batteries
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$47.83	$20.44
Net award	$27.39
Bond	$1,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.39

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Inspire Property Management Limited $27.39 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Inspire Property Management Limited: $27.39 [The tenant/s]: $1,452.61

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. Ms Jeanette Overend represented the landlord.
The tenants applied for the return of their bond.
The landlord counterclaimed for compensation, to be paid via the bond.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”

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 must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claimed the tenant did not leave the outside of premises reasonably clean and tidy. Light bulbs required replacing. Outside
In support of the claim the landlord provided entry and exit photos and an invoice. The landlord sought $552.00 based on an invoice from N&C Roberts.
The landlord did not volunteer that the invoice was from the owners. She had mentioned the people doing the work are not people they frequently use for such tasks. Later, I questioned her regarding the same name appearing on the invoice as being the same as the owner recorded in the tenancy agreement. She then confirmed the owners had done the gardening. That in itself is not fatal but it is concerning to have the invoice include $72.00 for GST when no GST number appeared on the invoice as required. Given the owners are named individuals, it is considered more than likely they are not GST registered.
The tenants further submitted the premises were not relet but were prepared and marketed for sale (this was confirmed by the landlord who advised it was later withdrawn and is now relet). That merits some consideration of the extent of the gardening effort (16 hours claimed) that may have been required to return the premises as expected of a tenant, versus how an owner may want to present it for sale. An extra effort for marketing purposes may be a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
A final concern regarding this claim was raised by the tenants. One photo presented by the landlord as showing the outdoor condition at the end of the tenancy was believed to be a cropped version of a prior photo taken during the tenancy. They believed this to be so as their dog run was in the original photo but cropped out in the photo later presented by the landlord as evidence. The landlord accepted at the hearing that the dog run had been removed at the end of the tenancy. The removal of the dog run was further confirmed as the parties had discussed the requirement for resowing of that grass area (damaged by the run) at the end of the tenancy. No actual claim was made for that.
I provided for the tenants to submit the original photo after the hearing. The landlord was to be copied and given the opportunity to respond. I received the photo from the tenant but no response from the landlord has been received.
Based on the shadows and general condition shown in both, I accept the two photos (see below, cropped photo on the left and original photo on the right) are the same. The mistake may have been unintentional as another photo was provided of the area after the run was removed
There were several concerns regarding this claim and the supporting evidence for both effort and cost. The landlord has failed to evidence the claim to the required standard. The claim is dismissed. Lightbulbs
The landlord had to replace light bulbs at a cost of $47.83. The tenants did not dispute that and accepted the cost. Application filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with their claim I have reimbursed their filing fee.
The landlord is to carry its cost of filing. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant requested suppression in its application. As it has been substantially successful, tenant name suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4640489 — Property damage at 120 Great North Road, Winton, Winton 9720

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4640489 — Property damage at 120 Great North Road, Winton, Winton 9720

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions