What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4642789?

The tribunal order states: Teleaga Aotoa must pay Quan Shu $2,407.29 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4642789?

Cabinet Glass: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $5.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,929.57 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $2,192.72 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4642789?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4642789?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9594981-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4642789?

The tribunal order states: Teleaga Aotoa must pay Quan Shu $2,407.29 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4642789?

Cabinet Glass: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $5.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,929.57 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $2,192.72 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4642789?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4642789?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9594981-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

30 Laurel Street, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4642789 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4642789 — net $2,407.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears at end of tenancy	$2,929.57	Rent arrears at end of tenancy
Water rates	$2,192.72	Water rates
Three light bulbs	$5.00	Three light bulbs
Cabinet glass	$80.00	Cabinet glass
Net award	$2,407.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,407.29

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4642789 — net $2,407.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears at end of tenancy	$2,929.57	Rent arrears at end of tenancy
Water rates	$2,192.72	Water rates
Three light bulbs	$5.00	Three light bulbs
Cabinet glass	$80.00	Cabinet glass
Net award	$2,407.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,407.29

Order

Teleaga Aotoa must pay Quan Shu $2,407.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (5299638-002) to Quan Shu immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant. The landlord seeks orders in relation to rent arrears, water rates, damage and cleaning to the premises.
The hearing was scheduled for 1 November 2023 in Auckland. The landlord requested to attend the hearing by telephone, the tenant attended in person. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears at end of tenancy$2,929.57 Water rates$2,192.72 Three light bulbs$5.00 Cabinet glass$80.00 Total award$5,207.29 Minus bond- $2,800.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,407.29

BACKGROUND

The landlord is Quan (Marshall) Shu, and the tenant is Teleaga Aotoa. The tenancy commenced on 13 June 2020, and the parties are in agreement that the tenancy was to end on 20 July 2023. However the tenants position is that the landlord took possession of the tenancy early.
The tenant states that the tenancy was due to end on 20 July 2023, but prior to the tenants completing the final clean and move out, the next tenants moved in one day early, on 19 July. The landlord disputes that is correct, stating that the next tenant only moved in on 20 July, and after the remedial work that is the subject of this claim was completed.
The tenant strongly disputes that the landlord in fact did the work he claims was undertaken. The tenant produced a range of photographs that she says were taken on 31 October (the day before the hearing). These photographs were both inside and outside the tenancy, and the tenant says those show the same damage and ‘rubbish’ that the landlord says was addressed at the end of her tenancy. The tenant says that she has developed a relationship with the new tenant in the premises, given they have both had problems with the landlord.
I note at this juncture, that the tenancy agreement has been provided by the landlord, but this agreement has not been signed by the tenant. The agreement is the standard form Tenancy Services agreement, and includes in type (presumably from the landlord), an update of the pre-tenancy inspection report, indicating there was no existing damage.
I also note that the agreement includes clauses which are plainly inconsistent with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, such as an ability to immediately terminate the tenancy if there are rent arrears, and to pay interest and legal costs to the landlord. The agreement also records that “there is no damage, no defects, through the whole of the property internally and externally”. But again I note that was not signed by the tenant.

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.
As will be set out below, the onus will take particular relevance for the claims below.

RENT ARREARS

The landlord has applied for an order that the tenant pay rent arrears totalling $2,929.57. The tenant agrees she owes these arrears, so they are ordered by consent.

WATER RATES

The landlord seeks an order of $4,385.44 for water rates over the course of the tenancy. The landlord states that this was raised with the tenant during the tenancy.
The tenant disputes this claim on the basis that there is another property at the rear of the premises that uses the water supply to the tenancy she rented, and the tenant states that the landlord would not clarify the water use for the back section. In short the tenant wanted to be sure that the charges she was being asked to pay for water, in fact related to her tenancy, and that she was not therefore paying for her neighbours water use.
The landlord states that there was a separate water meter for the back unit, and that has been deducted from the charges raised for Ms Aotea’s charges.
The tenant states that she has not seen evidence of that other meter, and further that when she contacted Watercare, they advised there is only one water meter on the premises. The tenant states that the amount of the charge the landlord is now seeking that she pay, is the amount of the Watercare invoice, therefore there has been no deduction made. Analysis
The landlord has included a statement he has generated setting out the water consumption and waste water charges, and the “total consumption charges”, which total $5,870.02. The statement records that the “Back Unit Usage” is $1,170.19, meaning that the tenant is liable for charges of $4,385.44 (after a payment of $314.40).
The tenant has not disputed that she should pay the water used in the premises, she is disputing the accuracy of the landlords claim. The tenant does not consider that the landlord has shown evidence of any metering to the back unit, and in fact the tenant says that Watercare have confirmed to her there is no separate meter.
Section 39 of the RTA relates to responsibility for outgoings like water. That provision confirms that the tenant is only liable for the cost of outgoings are “exclusively attributable” to the tenants occupation of the premises. That means that for any claim to be established, the landlord needs to prove to the Tribunal that the water charges he is wanting the tenant to pay, are charges that are more likely than not charges that are ‘exclusively attributable’ to the tenants occupation of the premises.
On the basis of the evidence available, the landlord has not proven how much water has been used by the back premises. The landlord has not established that the back unit is separately metered. The landlord has set out in the statement the monthly consumption (which presumably relates to the Watercare charges), but has not set out the monthly record of specific usage for the back property. The landlord has simply deducted an amount at the end of the statement which he says is for the back units water use.
Putting to one side whether there is in fact a water meter for the back property, the landlord has not adequately proven how much water the tenant has used, exclusively in the tenancy.
That said it is fair that the tenant make some contribution to the water charges. In the absence of better evidence around the split between the two premises, I have determined it would be fair for the tenant to pay half of the amount claimed, which is $2,192.72.

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. Rubbish removal
The landlord states there was rubbish left on the premises that needed to be removed. The landlord considers the premises were not clean at the end of the tenancy, so they needed to use antifungal chemicals.
The tenant states that they had paid for their own rubbish removal. All that was left in the premises was cleaning materials that where in the house when the current tenant took over. The tenant states that what was shown in the landlords photographs was the new tenants goods. The tenant states that all rubbish from their tenancy was removed, and most cleaning was done, they had a group of people undertaking the cleaning, but could not finish the job prior to 19 July.
The landlord says that the rubbish was only a small job. Analysis
I find this claim must be dismissed for the following reasons: a. I am not persuaded that the tenants did leave rubbish on the premises. I accept the tenants evidence that the items shown in the photographs are items from the incoming tenant, not items left by the tenant. b. I have not received any evidence from the ‘worker’ for the landlord as to the state of the premises on 20 July 2023. I found the evidence from the tenant to be credible and convincing, and the tenants evidence that there was no rubbish left is accepted. c. The tenants evidence is supported by charges for rubbish dumping fees the tenant incurred, supporting that she responsibly did remove rubbish on the premises at the end of the tenancy. d. I am not persuaded that the landlord has proven that rubbish removal in fact occurred. The tenant provided photographs taken at the tenancy very recently, which supports that some of the items the landlord is suggesting were tenant rubbish left on the premises, are still present, which would be consistent with those belonging to current (replacement) tenant.
This claim has not been established by the landlord so it is dismissed. Cleaning
For similar reasons to the rubbish claim, this claim is dismissed. I accept that the replacement tenant moved in early, before the tenant had finalised cleaning the premises. If a landlord takes possession of the premises prior to the proper tenancy end date, the landlord cannot then seek costs for cleaning alleging a tenant breach. I consider it very likely that had the landlord not taken possession early, the tenant would have completed the necessary cleaning.

COMPENSATION

With any claim for compensation, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must firstly prove the damage 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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. Toilet seat
The landlord claims $139.00 to replace a toilet seat, which was missing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant states that the toilet seat was loose but was present at the end of the tenancy.
In response the landlord states that the photographs were taken by his “worker” on the 20 th of July. Analysis
Having heard from the tenant, I accept that the toilet seat was likely to have been present at the end of the tenancy. I prefer the tenants evidence to that of the landlord who did not take the photographs he relies on. Again I have not heard evidence from the worker who did take the photographs which might explain why the seat was missing from those photographs.
The landlord has not otherwise established that any issues with the toilet seat were anything other than maintenance.
This claim is dismissed. Light bulbs
The landlord has claimed $150.00 to replace three light bulbs. I raised with the landlord that this is an extraordinary amount to charge to replace three light bulbs. The landlord states that this included the workers time.
The tenant agrees that three lightbulbs needed to be replaced, and stated that they intended to do this, but the next tenant had moved in early. Analysis
The tenant agrees that bulbs needed to be replaced at the tenancy. I accept that the tenant would likely have replaced them, but that would have incurred a cost for the tenant to do so. Ultimately the landlord paid to replace the bulbs, and I find the tenant liable for the replacement cost, only to the cost of the bulbs. Because I accept the tenant would have replaced the bulbs if possession had not been taken early by the landlord, it is not reasonable to order any labour component. The missing bulbs appear to be standard light bulbs. The cost to purchase standard bulbs will be very modest, I order $5.00 to be paid by the tenant for that. Cabinet window
The landlord claims $80.00 for the replacement of a cabinet window inside the house.
The tenant agrees that this window was broken during the tenancy, and states that she had arranged a glazier herself who was to come to the premises on 20 th , but that did not proceed as the premises had been taken over by the landlord. Analysis
Again this damage is not disputed. If possession had not been taken of the premises early, the tenant would have incurred a replacement cost for this glass. It is reasonable that the tenant pay the $80.00 replacement cost only. I decline any further order for the labour component. Exterior windows
The landlord seeks compensation for three broken windows.
The tenant agrees that one of the bedroom windows were broken by a child, and one other window broken during the storm, but is not sure what the third window that is claimed relates to. Analysis
The landlord has claimed for three broken windows, but his evidence as to which windows they related to was lacking. The landlord pointed to the photographs supplied, and the invoice from Awa Design and Build (AWA limited).
When I consider the photographs, that the landlord said was taken on 20 July, there do appear to be three broken windows.
However I accept the evidence from the tenant that when she has returned to the premises, the windows have not been replaced. I note that one of the photographs provided by the landlord in support of this claim, appears to be consistent with a photograph supplied by the tenant, which the tenant reports to have been taken just prior to the hearing. The landlords photograph is taken from outside the window, the tenants photograph appears taken from inside the window and shows the damage taped over. But in my assessment, the fracture of the glass appears to show the same damage. That lends weight to the evidence of the tenant that the landlord has not had the glass repaired, despite the landlord producing an invoice for the repair.
Because I am not persuaded that the landlord has had the window repaired as he claims, I decline to make the orders for the replacement cost.
This claim is dismissed. Plastering
The landlord seeks repair costs for work to plasterboard walls in the bathroom, which the landlord states the tenant said they would do during the tenancy. The landlord states that the tenants caused a water leak.
In response the tenant states that the damage to the walls was because the doors did not have door stoppers, and there were continuous problems with mould. The tenant said when they moved in there was only painted over mould. The tenant said they had plastered the walls themselves, and they did all the maintenance because the landlord would not do that work. The tenant says they left the premises as best they could. Analysis
The landlord has not established to the Tribunal’s satisfaction that any damage has been caused to the tenancy by the tenants, certainly damage beyond fair wear and tear.
Overall, based on the evidence supplied by the tenant, my impression is that the landlord has not maintained the premises. I cannot see any careless or intentional damage that could be the subject of an order here.
This claim is dismissed.

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, but as the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful, name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4642789 — Rent arrears at 30 Laurel Street, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4642789 — Rent arrears at 30 Laurel Street, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

RENT ARREARS

WATER RATES

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

COMPENSATION

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

RENT ARREARS

WATER RATES

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

COMPENSATION

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions