How much money was awarded in case 4677169?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Credit –: $7,744.43 awarded to tenant; Eviction Warrant (To Be Taken From R…: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $267.95 awarded to landlord; Removal Of Furniture And Goods: $4,577.00 awarded to landlord; Remove Car: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Sale Of Items: $1,300.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677169?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677169?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9730055-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4677169?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Credit –: $7,744.43 awarded to tenant; Eviction Warrant (To Be Taken From R…: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $267.95 awarded to landlord; Removal Of Furniture And Goods: $4,577.00 awarded to landlord; Remove Car: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Sale Of Items: $1,300.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677169?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677169?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9730055-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4677169 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4677169 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4677169 — net $3,449.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00		Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$267.95		Lock/key replacement
Eviction warrant (to be taken from rent credit	$200.00		Eviction warrant (to be taken from rent credit
Removal of furniture and goods	$4,577.00		Removal of furniture and goods
Remove car	$230.00		Remove car
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Credit – to 5 December 2023		$7,744.43	Credit – to 5 December 2023
Sale of items		$1,300.00	Sale of items
Total award	$5,595.39	$9,044.43
Net award		$3,449.04
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,449.04

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

[The landlord/s] must pay Katrina Raukura Ropiha $3,449.04 calculated as shown in the table below.

The sum payable in order 2 is payable immediately. However, in the absence of Katrina Raukura Ropiha providing a bank account number within two working days from the date of this order to enable payment, [The landlord/s] must instead pay the sum due at order 2 above to the Bond Centre (using bond number [Bond number suppressed]). Katrina Raukura Ropiha must then request the sum from the Bond Centre if she requires it. The Bond Centre is to release the money to the tenant on her request.

If further sums are received by [The landlord/s] for rent from or on behalf of Katrina Raukura Ropiha, in the absence of a bank account number being provided by her for the return of the money, [The landlord/s] must lodge such sums received at the Bond Centre (using Bond number [Bond number suppressed]). This must be done every three months with the first lodgement taking place on 1 March 2024 and following every three months thereafter until Katrina Raukura Ropiha ceases paying rent. Katrina Raukura Ropiha must then request the sum from the Bond Centre if she requires it. The Bond Centre is to release the money to the tenant on her request.

BY CONSENT - Katrina Raukura Ropiha will collect the remaining items that [The landlord/s] holds on her behalf at 11am on Tuesday 12 December 2023 from [redacted].

If Katrina Raukura Ropiha fails to collect the remaining items that [The landlord/s] holds on her behalf at 11am on Tuesday 12 December 2023 from [redacted] then [The landlord/s] may dispose of the remaining goods but if the goods have a saleable value they must be sold and the money received paid into the Bond Centre (using Bond number [Bond number suppressed]) after reasonable sale costs are deducted. The Bond Centre is to release the money to the tenant on her request.

The landlord withdraws their application for compensation for power.

The landlord’s application for storage costs is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application by the landlord for compensation, an order to dispose of goods, an order concerning credit sums and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord’s property managers attended. The tenant had her mother as a support person. Background

On 11 July 2023 the Tribunal heard an application to terminate the tenancy on the basis of rent arrears. I heard this application and my order was issued on 12 July 2023 terminating the tenancy later that day. This order included rent arrears to 11 July 2023. In this decision I will call this order the ‘12 July Order’.

The tenant did not leave voluntarily. The landlord needed to engage a Ministry of Justice Bailiff and the police also were involved. Ultimately, the tenant was detained by the police to enable the landlord to proceed with the eviction. This took place on 26 July 2023. Civil burden of proof

As explained at the hearing, as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlord) 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”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted 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.

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 the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

The parties gave lengthy submissions and evidence. I have not referred to it all, but it has been considered. The hearing

The tenant expressed at the hearing that she regards the 12 July Order to be ‘null and void’ and that it does not stand.

The tenant gave multiple reasons why she did not accept the order, I do not need to set out all of the reasons here because she took none of the required steps after the 12 July 2023 order was made to set aside or have the order re- considered. The process that she followed after receiving the 12 July Order was simply to write null and void on it and assert the rights that she believed that she held. Some of these rights appear to stem from her position which she describes as ‘Crown Principal Chief’.

An adjudicator cannot revisit a sealed order of the Tribunal in this situation. The 12 July Order therefore still applies.

At the hearing the tenant repeated on multiple occasions that she wanted me to reconsider the 12 July Order. On many occasions I heard from her why she thought it did not stand. I explained on these occasions that the 12 July Order did stand and would not be reconsidered at the hearing.

I also set out that the goods (and the tenancy) would not be reinstated into the tenancy address as she wanted.

During the hearing the tenant did not want to listen to why the 12 July Order stands and why I do not have the ability to revisit or change it. Her position was very strongly that it was wrong and that it was ‘null and void’.

The tenant was obstructive to the conduct of the hearing, particularly not following direction to cease with her irrelevant and repetitive argument about the 12 July Order and my involvement in the making of that order (see s 97(6), Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)). There were ample reminders that she would be removed if she did not follow my directions.

From the very outset of the hearing, I removed myself from the room for a short period as the tenant’s support person immediately tried to loudly assert her right to speak despite a clear direction, given immediately before, explaining her role and that a support person does not have a right to speak. This was to let the support person calm down and cease her representations and so the hearing could proceed with her supporting the tenant rather than removing her from the room.

During the course of the hearing, on numerous occasions the tenant would not enable me to conduct the hearing due to misbehaving and interrupting when not ceasing with making irrelevant and repetitive submissions about the 12 July Order. She also was insulting (s 112, RTA).

The tenant was angry that the 12 July Order would not be reconsidered and sought to use intimidation and a range of other irrelevant arguments to seek to attempt me to change my position. By way of example, submissions included that I would find myself with a jail term, be held accountable by a military Tribunal for not reconsidering the 12 July Order, was in violation of s 28 RTA, that I should not remove myself from the room when I sought to do so due to her conduct, should consider a document she referred to as a ‘war manual’ she says was amended by Donald Trump, the room we were conducting the hearing in was only a temporary rented room so there was no jurisdiction and that other adjudicators (being Principal Tenancy Adjudicator Robson and Adjudicator Northwood) were aware of my decision in the 12 July Order which bought disrepute to the Tribunal.

Midway though the hearing the tenant sought to rely on diplomatic immunity. I have considered this below.

The tenant was given multiple warnings including short removals on a temporary basis. Ultimately, she was removed from the hearing due to the conduct that was continuing despite warnings and temporary removals (s 112, RTA). This was towards the end of the hearing day. The hearing concluded without her. Immunity

Certain people who work in embassies are protected by diplomatic immunity. In New Zealand this is introduced into our law by way of the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act 1968, which adopts a number of Articles in The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which sets out the rules for diplomatic immunity.

The tenant relied on an ID card to establish her immunity. It is headed ‘WAKAMINENGA KI HAMUA HAPOTIKI SEA PASS’ (which I understand to be the Māori Government). It refers to diplomatic immunity and the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act and privileges and immunities for international organisations. As set out above, she described herself as a ‘Crown Principal Chief’.

Diplomatic and consular immunity in New Zealand is conferred on all entitled members of a foreign mission (and entitled family members) who have been notified to, and accepted by, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade accredited to New Zealand and performing a diplomatic or consular function.

I have considered the tenants submissions but conclude she has not established that she would have a diplomatic immunity as the above legislation would anticipate. Rent and payments since 11 July 2023

The landlord provided rent records proving the amounts received by the landlord following the 12 July Order to the end of the tenancy. The tenant has continued to pay sums to the landlord after being removed from the property.

This means as at the date of this hearing there are no rent arrears. The landlord wants to apply the credit it holds to orders made in this application and/or seek an order about returning the money to the tenant because the tenant, the landlord says, will not provide a bank account details.

It is first necessary to establish the amount of credit. The 12 July Order stands so I need only consider sums paid and payable following that hearing date (11 July).

The 12 July Order terminating the tenancy provided that the tenant was $2,424.42 in arrears (as at 11 July 2023) and also awarded the landlord the filing fee (totalling $2,444.86). The bond of $1,800 was released from the Bond Centre by the order to part satisfy this debt. This left a judgment debt of $644.86 (arrears plus filing fee).

Since the date of the hearing on 11 July 2023 the landlord has obtained $500 towards the $644.86 judgment debt in the 12 July Order via Collections. The tenant says this was without her consent but no consent is required for an attachment order

The total amount received by the landlord from the tenant since 11 July 2023 (either via direct payments or via collections but excluding the bond) is $9,450.

The release of the bond extinguished part of the arrears due in the 12 July Order. The remaining judgment debt of $644.86 is extinguished by sums received via Collections and by applying some of the payments made by the tenant.

This leaves the tenant with $8,805.14 paid subject to a deduction for rent payable from 12 July 2023 to 26 July 2023.

From 12 July 2023 to 26 July 2023 the sum owed in rent is $1,060.71 (at $495 per week as established in the 12 July Order).

The tenant says costs of a dehumidifier and heater should have been taken into account because she requested a sum be refunded to her from her bond when she bought this. The landlord says there was no agreement for this. This was something that the tenant took it upon herself to do and request. There is no probative evidence to support such an agreement. The tenant has not proven that this was a charge that she was entitled to claim from the landlord by way of set off or otherwise. I therefore do not need to account for this.

The tenant made representations about interest relating to the bond at the Bond Centre. I do not consider this to be relevant. The landlord is obliged to deposit the bond at the Bond Centre. The landlord does not receive any interest. There is no right of recovery of interest for sums held at the Bond Centre (s127, RTA).

This means that as at the date of the hearing on 5 December 2023 the landlord holds $7,744.43 as an over payment of rent.

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. Locks

The landlord says they had to change the locks as the tenant was evicted by the bailiff and the police. The landlord says that once the tenant was released by the police she attempted to return to the property and the landlord had to involve the police again. Three locks were changed.

In summary, the tenant says her removal was an unlawful home invasion, kidnapping and a Black Ops operation where she was handcuffed. She says she was never behind in rent. She says she had trespassed the police from her property herself. She says that she has paid a substantial amount of money in rent overall so that she now has an interest (ownership) in the property.

The 12 July Order terminated the tenancy and granted possession to the landlord. The landlord was entitled to use a Ministry of Justice bailiff supported by the police to gain possession of the property as it was not surrendered voluntarily. There is no credible evidence to support a finding that the tenant has acquired a right to home ownership due to paying rent. Allegations of criminal conduct fall outside the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal. I find there was no unlawful home invasion.

I accept that in the circumstances the locks needed changing immediately.

The sums ordered of $267.95 are proven. Cleaning

I accept that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

When she was removed the tenant’s items remained in the home. She says her whole house full of items was there. These had to be removed and then cleaning was undertaken. The property is a three-bedroom home.

The tenant says the cleaning would not have been needed if there had not been a home invasion. I have dealt with the home invasion above. It is not established.

It is clear the property was still being lived in when the tenant was evicted. As set out below, it remained full of her possessions. This means there was no opportunity for the tenant to undertake an end of tenancy clean before she was removed. I accept that surfaces (including inside the kitchen and bathroom cupboards and around windows) needed wiping and floors vacuumed or mopped and that the bathroom and oven needed to be cleaned.

However, the landlord says that the cleaning work also included cleaning the heat pump and wiping walls. Cleaning the heat pump filter is a landlord responsibility. A tenant also does not need to wipe walls in order to leave a property reasonably clean and tidy. This additional work would have more likely than not have taken the premises to a state better than the tenant was required to return it in. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls and ceilings. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that the can re- tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.

The landlord claims $360.00 for the cleaning costs.

I award $300.00 which is an amount I consider reasonable given the effort required, supported by the photographs presented, with a reasonable reduction for the additional work undertaken that the tenant is not liable for.

How much is owed for power?

The landlord withdrew its claim for power. Eviction warrant

There is a $200 charge when an eviction warrant is sought. The landlord has paid this and provided evidence in the form of the invoice. The landlord seeks $200 as compensation.

The tenant says the warrant would not have been needed if there had not been a home invasion. I have dealt with the home invasion above. This is not established.

As is usual practice, the $200 eviction warrant fee was added to the $644.86 judgment debt by Collections. This is shown by a letter from the Collections Unit provided to the Tribunal.

The landlord told Collections to cease its collections after $500 had been obtained by Collections from the tenant. This was because by that stage the landlord’s rent ledger was in credit (due to the tenant continuing to pay rent after the tenancy had ended). The $500 collected via Collections is evidenced and accounted for in the landlord’s rent records.

Usually, the Tribunal would not award the eviction warrant fee because it can result in double recovery if it is collected once via Collections automatic system and once in the form of an order.

However, in these particular circumstances the position is different. Collections have been involved but have been instructed to no longer collect. The landlord already holds the money to satisfy the eviction warrant fee. The landlord told Collections to stop collecting because the landlord had received sufficient funds to cover the judgment debt and the eviction fee. The landlord is entitled to recover $200 from the payments made by the tenant from the money it already holds.

I have therefore made an award for this in the table above so that it appropriately reduces the credit repayable to the tenant.

If any further attempts to collect on enforcement number [redacted] are made then the tenant may refer to this order to show it has been paid in full. The landlord should also ensure that no further collections are made on the 12 July Order. Disposal of goods

The landlord seeks compensation for the removal cost of all goods and a car and storage costs for goods and a car. It also seeks an order allowing it to dispose of certain goods it still has.

On 26 July 2023 when the tenant was removed from the property both parties agree that a house lot of items remained. The landlord’s position

The landlord says that it was advised by the bailiff and the police to remove the tenant’s items from the premises immediately upon her eviction.

On the day of the eviction the landlord had arranged for a company to take the goods and store them at a local storage facility. The landlord explained that the company used was known to them but were not friends as the tenant suggested. An invoice is provided.

The landlord says that it took 4 people to empty the home using two box body trucks (being described as the same size as a large campervan but driven on a car licence). The movers were on standby from 9am and could start packing up at 10.30am when the property was signed over to the landlord. They were complete by around 2.30pm or 3pm. Work had to stop for around an hour when the police had to come back due to further disturbance after the tenant was released by the police, involving her mother and her aunt.

On the same day the landlord also arranged for a Red Ford Falcon, described by the landlord as being rusty and leaking with no WOF or registration, to be towed to the storage facility. The landlord says that it could have been towed onto the road but there were concerns about it being damaged. The landlord says the car was imported from Australia and had been on the tenant’s driveway for two years. At the time the car was removed the landlord says it was estimated it was not of great value but the bailiff said to remove it. The landlord then made the decision to store it.

No inventory of any of the goods taken from the property by the landlord is available. There were also no photographs. The photographs in the final inspection report provided to me were taken after furniture had been taken to the storage facility. The property manager was able to give me an oral account of the property she could recall.

There was no evidence of any assessment of value and the landlord’s position is that none was undertaken when the goods were taken to storage. The view was that although no assessment was done the goods were stored for more than 35 days.

The landlord contacted the tenant by email on 27 July 2023 advising her that she could collect her things. The email sets out that the goods were removed at the request of the police and that the property can be accessed by contacting [security company]. The email says details would be provided as soon as confirmation is received. The landlord says this was provided shortly afterwards. The email refers to all goods having to be collected in 35 days and that the tenant was liable for the cost of storage, encouraging an early collection.

The landlord provided evidence of a reminder that was sent to the tenant on 8 August 2023. That email confirms that the tenant had been in touch with [security company] by this time but not yet made an arrangement to collect.

The tenant did not collect the goods. Once 35 days had passed the property managers say that they gave the key to the storage facility to the owner. He also then tried to return the goods, including offering to being them to the tenant. Her position is shown in a variety of text messages provided as evidence sent to the owner saying the goods must be returned to the tenancy address.

Save for goods that were in the property manager’s car at the time of the hearing (referred to below and referred to as ‘personal items’) once 35 days had passed the tenant’s goods were passed from the property managers to the landlord. Oral evidence and written submissions were that the landlord then sold 2 single beds for $250, the couch dining table and chairs for $600 and the freezer, washing machine and dryer for $450 (total $1,300). The landlord’s written submissions are that the remaining property (other than personal items referred to below) was ‘dumped by the owner as they had no value to sell’.

The car was removed by a wrecker from storage at no additional cost. There were no fees to take it away and the landlord received no money in return.

The landlord says that they still have and want to return a carload (5 large boxes) of personal items to the tenant. There is no inventory or photographs but the landlord says that the personal belongings include: family photos, guitar, birth certificates, jewellery, laptops, i-pads, charges for the electrical items, work files, school books/certificates. The property manager had bought these to the hearing in her car and confirmed the collection of goods included the two portraits the tenant expressed concern about (below). The tenant’s position

The Tenant says that the removal of the goods was unlawful given the unlawful home invasion.

The tenant also says that the list that was given orally on behalf of the landlord was not complete. In summary, the tenant referred to 5 beds (she says that the beds were new from 2020), expensive trainers, brand new linen, packs of unused socks of a kind she liked, a quantity of food and water for lockdown type emergencies and generally, resources from old programs, books, photographs, two expensive portraits, a panel heater, gumboots, drawers, two TVs, a chrome book, school uniform and cosmetics, a trampoline, lots of new clothes, a machine for cancer patients, a coffin, the ashes of her cat, leather jackets, expensive sneakers, shoes and boots, art products, a keyboard, collagen products, teddy bears, blankets and duvets, a guitar, a record collection, playstations (x3), cleaning products, a GHD hair straightener and hair driers, a book with $1000 in it, jewellery such as a watch, diamond earrings, a diamond cluster ring, cubic zirconia earrings and a bracelet, medicine, kitchen appliances such as a hangi pot, airfryer and fryer, pans, plates, cups and cutlery, a vaporiser, a old style mincer, a stereo, plants, a bookshelf, a dining room table and chairs, a wand for healing, a massager, weed cutter, hedge trimmer, tent, BBQ, cooker and other stored items in the shed, a planter box and a lawnmower and petrol can. Other items of note mentioned in the hearing were a washing machine, dryer, freezer and an ipad/computers.

The tenant says that the car did have value and she had shipped it to New Zealand in 2019. She values it at $5,000 and says it was not rusty and worn. She says she was working with a mechanic on the car. She says it was covered not due to leaks but to protect it from the mountain weather.

The tenant also referred to a work car that had also been towed following her eviction. The landlord says this car was removed by her employer and there was no claim in relation to this.

The tenant says that she sent a number of messages to different people including [The security company employee] at [security company], [The landlord/s] and the property managers telling them to return the property to the tenancy address. She says someone from the police also called her ‘begging for [The landlord/s] to be able to deliver it to her. She says that her response was to return it to the tenancy address.

The tenant says she rang [The security company employee] at [security company] but she was not called back and that she did not know where the property was. The law

There is a particular process set out in the RTA that should be followed when goods have been abandoned by a tenant.

As relevant here, s 62 RTA provides that: (1) where, on the termination of the tenancy, the tenant leaves on the premises foodstuffs or other perishable goods, the landlord may, immediately after taking possession of the premises, dispose of those goods in any way the landlord thinks fit. (2) If the tenant leaves on the premises goods that are neither foodstuffs nor other perishable goods, the landlord must, immediately after taking possession of the premises, make all reasonable efforts to contact the tenant and to agree with the tenant on a period within which the tenant is to collect the goods. (3) If the landlord is unable to contact the tenant or to agree on a period with the tenant, or if the tenant fails to collect the goods within the agreed period, the landlord must ensure that any personal documents belonging to the tenant are stored securely and must deal with the other goods either— a. in accordance with section 62A; or b. by securing them in safe storage and by applying to the Tribunal in accordance with section 62B.

Section 62A, RTA provides that: (1) The landlord may deal with the goods to which section 62(3) applies, other than personal documents belonging to the tenant, by making all reasonable efforts to assess the market value of those goods. (2) If the assessment under subsection (1) indicates that any of the goods have a value below the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them, the landlord may immediately dispose of those goods in any way the landlord thinks fit. (3) If the assessment under subsection (1) indicates that any of the goods have a value above the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them, the landlord must secure those goods in safe storage for not less than 35 days from the date on which the landlord first took possession of those goods. (4) If, before the landlord disposes of the goods under subsection (5), the tenant claims the goods and any personal documents belonging to the tenant or claims either the goods or the documents,— a. the landlord may require the tenant to pay the landlord’s actual and reasonable costs arising out of the storage of the goods; and b. the landlord must release to the tenant any goods and personal documents claimed by the tenant, subject to payment of any costs required under paragraph (a); and c. the tenant must give the landlord a receipt for any goods and personal documents released to the tenant. (5) If, after the period of 35 days specified in subsection (3), the goods or any personal documents belonging to the tenant remain unclaimed, the landlord must— d. continue to secure those goods and personal documents in safe storage to await any claims by the tenant under subsection (4); or e. do the following: i. take any personal documents belonging to the tenant to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them from a Police employee; and ii. sell the other goods by public auction or by private contract at a reasonable market price. (6) If the landlord has sold the goods under subsection (5)(b)(ii), the landlord may apply to the Tribunal for an order specifying the amount (if any) owing to the landlord out of the proceeds of sale.

Section 62B sets out that the landlord may apply to the Tribunal for an order for the disposal of the goods to which s 62(3) applies, including any personal documents belonging to the tenant. Order to dispose of goods

The landlord has applied for the disposal of some of the personal goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord says these are family photos, guitar, birth certificates, jewellery, laptops, i-pads, charges for the electrical items, work files, school books/certificates. It includes the larger portraits the tenant expressed concern about (above).

The tenant agreed that she wants to collect these. The parties agreed that they could be collected from [redacted] at 11am on Tuesday 12 December 2023. The parties expressed that they knew where this was. The landlord says that the tenant cannot attend [The property management office] as a trespass order is in place.

In making this application to dispose of the goods I am satisfied that the landlord has followed the process in s 62(3)(b). They have been stored and the landlord has applied to the Tribunal.

The parties are in agreement about the collection of these goods. I have therefore made order 5 by consent for the return of these goods.

However, if the tenant fails to collect the remaining items that the landlord holds on her behalf at 11am on Tuesday 12 December 2023 from [redacted] the landlord may dispose of the remaining goods but if the goods have a saleable value they must be sold and the money received paid into the Bond Centre after reasonable sale costs are deducted (using the bond number as set out in the above order). The Bond Centre is to release the money to the tenant on her request.

The landlord has been extremely patient in trying to return the tenant’s goods to her. There could not be any reasonable expectation they would need to do more here. Compensation for the recovery of removal costs and storage

The landlord has not applied for a Tribunal order in relation to the disposal of other goods but seeks compensation for cost incurred in removal and storage and for a credit relating to sale of goods to be applied.

As no order from the Tribunal has been sought for goods that are not mentioned above and this means that (other than disposing of foodstuffs or perishable goods) the route the landlord must take is that set out in s 62A RTA.

That section requires an assessment of market value. There is no evidence of making reasonable efforts to assessment of market value undertaken at the time the goods were stored or upon disposal. A further hurdle is that there is no inventory or probative evidence of what needed to be stored or disposed of.

The landlord’s position in their written submissions is that the majority of the goods had no value. If this is the case then it begs the question why they had to be stored for 35 days because this is not what the RTA requires. On the other hand, if goods are assessed as having a market value then they cannot simply be disposed of without an order of the Tribunal – they must be sold at a reasonable market price.

The position of the landlord is difficult because they had a whole house of goods that the tenant was unwilling to collect or have returned to her. I do not find it credible that she did not know how to collect her goods. It is clear form the evidence filed that her intention was to get them placed back into the tenancy address and she was still seeking that at this hearing. However, where there is doubt or difficulty, the route of seeking an order from the Tribunal, with the appropriate evidence, is a clear and unambiguous option.

I have carefully considered the circumstances and the legislation very carefully. Ultimately, I conclude that the overall lack of evidence relating to what goods existed and the condition of the goods and any form of reasonable assessment of value means that I am limited in the award I can make.

Section 62(2) RTA first requires in all cases, for items other than food and perishables, regardless of the value of items, for the landlord to contact the tenant and to seek to agree a reasonable period within which the tenant is to collect the goods. Most often, this involves the landlord securely keeping the tenant’s goods at the tenancy address or moving the tenant’s goods to one room at the tenancy address while it is prepared for the next tenants or sale. This is often the most appropriate option because it reduces the cost the landlord incurs of moving all of the goods to a new location (see s49, RTA). However, the RTA does not specify where the goods must be held during this initial period. I accept that on rare occasions it may be appropriate to move the goods elsewhere immediately and I accept that this was an appropriate case to do so.

This is because I accept the landlord’s position that it was not appropriate to keep any of the goods on site at the tenancy address following the tenant’s eviction. The tenant’s position has been unusual and extreme.

I accept that the police and/or the bailiff would have required the landlord to take all steps to ensure that the tenant would not return to the property and removing property is a significant factor that mitigates that risk. It helps prevent a tenant from re-entering and simply moving back into the property again. It is clear from the submissions made at the Tribunal and the messages the tenant sent that she wrongly regards herself as still having a right to occupy the tenancy address.

It is clear that there was a significant amount of goods at the property when the tenant was evicted. On the basis of the oral evidence of the parties I find that using two box body trucks and 4 people taking the time stated is reasonable. In fact, the tenant suggested that the packing was done too quickly. The tenant had ample time to remove herself and her goods from the premises which is what the law required. The termination order was made on 12 July 2023. She was not removed until 26 July 2023.

I therefore award the landlord the cost of the removal of the tenant’s items to the storage of $4,577.00 and the tow costs for the car of $230.00.

I do not need to consider the tenant’s submissions in relation to the employer’s car as this is not part of the application before me. No compensation is claimed by the landlord for this.

However, I make no award in relation to storing the goods. In relation to the items that the landlord no longer has, in the absence of any probative evidence as to value, I cannot be satisfied how long the goods needed to be stored for.

In relation to the personal of goods the landlord still retains, while the landlord may have incurred costs in relation to storing those goods the cost of storing this much smaller group of items is not sufficiently clear. A large storage facility for two months was not needed for these items alone. I find that there is insufficient evidence for me to make an award in respect of the costs in relation to these goods.

The landlord says that sale of goods has raised $1,300. I accept this oral evidence. This sum must be accounted for and so I have included this in the calculations when determining the amounts due to the parties. Credit

The landlord has concerns that the tenant will continue to deposit rent and that the tenant will not provide a bank account number for the return of sum I have ordered she is owed.

The tenant appears to be continuing to make payments on the basis that she is still entitled to live at the property. Her right to do so has passed and she is encouraged to stop making payments to the landlord for rent for a house she cannot live in.

I have therefore ordered that in the absence of the tenant providing a bank account number to enable payment within two working days from the date of this order, the landlord must instead pay the sum due at order 2 above to the Bond Centre (using the bond number as set out in the order). The tenant must then request the sum from the Bond Centre if she requires it. The Bond Centre is to release the money to the tenant on her request.

If further sums are received by the landlord for rent from or on behalf of the tenant in the absence of a bank account number being provided by her for the return of the money, the landlord must lodge such sums received at the Bond Centre. This must be done every three months with the first lodgement taking place on 1 March 2024 and following every three months thereafter until the tenant ceases paying rent (using the bond number as set out in the order). The tenant must then request the sum from the Bond Centre if she requires it. The Bond Centre is to release the money to the tenant on her request. Suppression and filing fee

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The landlord requested name suppression. The tenant did not. I have awarded the landlord name suppression. The landlord needed to come to the Tribunal to resolve significant issues including the overpayment of rent and the collection of the tenant’s personal goods. Despite the landlord not being awarded all of the compensation claimed for storage and removal overall I consider the landlord to have been the substantially successful party (s 95A, RTA).

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4677169 — net $3,449.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00		Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$267.95		Lock/key replacement
Eviction warrant (to be taken from rent credit	$200.00		Eviction warrant (to be taken from rent credit
Removal of furniture and goods	$4,577.00		Removal of furniture and goods
Remove car	$230.00		Remove car
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Credit – to 5 December 2023		$7,744.43	Credit – to 5 December 2023
Sale of items		$1,300.00	Sale of items
Total award	$5,595.39	$9,044.43
Net award		$3,449.04
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,449.04