What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4677631 about?

The tribunal order states: Margeurite Wirihana to pay [The landlord/s] $378.44 from the bond, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4677631?

Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $220.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677631?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677631?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9671805-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4677631 about?

The tribunal order states: Margeurite Wirihana to pay [The landlord/s] $378.44 from the bond, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4677631?

Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $220.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677631?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677631?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9671805-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4677631 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4677631 — net $378.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$220.00	e rent arrears position at the end of the tenancy. The tenant is ordered to pay $220.00 to the landlord for rent.
Cleaning	$138.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$378.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$378.44

Margeurite Wirihana to pay [The landlord/s] $378.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $378.44 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,161.56 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Margeurite Wirihana immediately.

Reasons

This remote teleconference was heard on 20 November 2023.

The landlord was represented by [The landlord’s representative/s].

The tenant sadly passed away on 8 October 2023.

Ms Wirihana, the granddaughter of the deceased, sought to represent the deceased. Ms Wirihana confirmed that she had spoken with the direct next of kin of the deceased and that they had all agreed to her representing the deceased. I agreed to that application.

Ms Wirihana, during the course of the hearing and in the documents supplied, has referred to claims that she wishes to bring against the landlord on behalf of the deceased. It does not appear that at the date of hearing this matter that an application has been filed with Tenancy Services and the filing fee paid in respect of those claims. I have accordingly limited this decision to the matters currently before the Tribunal. This does not mean that Ms Wirihana is prevented from filing her claim. She is entitled to do so. It simply means that I have not considered it as part of this hearing.

The landlord claims are as follows; • Rent arrears. • Compensation for cleaning. • Release of the bond. • Reimbursement of the filing fee.

During the course of the hearing , Ms Wirihana consented to an order being made in favour of the landlord for cleaning. The sum claimed is $138.00.

That essentially leaves the rent arrears claim to be considered. General Law

The party bringing the claim is required to prove their claim to the civil standard called the “balance of probabilities.” The point where I accept that it is more likely than not that their version of events is correct. In crude mathematical terms, this might be described as meaning that the party whose claim has a probability threshold of 51% will meet the standard of proof. If they only reach 50% or less, then as a matter of law their claim must fail.

In this matter the onus or job of proving the claims fall on the landlord.

Just because I may find for one party or the other on a particular issue, does not necessarily mean that the unsuccessful party is wrong. It merely means that on the evidence presented, I was not sufficiently certain to make an order.

The Tribunal is not required to set out all of the evidence proffered by the parties at the hearing, but they can be assured that it has been taken into account in reaching this decision.

The following evidence is relevant in this consideration.

On 8 February 2023, the tenant gave 28 days written notice to the landlord of her intention to terminate the tenancy. The expiry date was to be 7 March 2023.

The landlord replied to that notice;” As per our discussion earlier this week I will not hold you to any notice period due to your health therefore you can leave whenever you need or want to. Please let me know if you want to leave earlier.”

The tenant did not move out on 7 March 2023.

In May 2023 there were further discussion between the tenant and the landlord. The tenant informed the landlord that she would be moving out the next week. The tenant assumed that there remained no requirement for her to give notice. [The landlord representative/s] said that formal notice would be required.

During the course of a recorded voicemail left by the tenant for the landlord dated 15 May 2023, the tenant said; “Hi [The landlord’s representative], if I have to stay the 28 days that’s all right I’ll be quite happy about that to the 14 th of June anyhow that’s my 28 days so if that’s the case not a problem....”

In documentation provided by Ms Wirihana, she says that the voicemail message on 15 May 2023 was sent in frustration by the tenant and that the statement “If its 28 days then so be it” should not be considered as an acceptance by the tenant of the need tenant to give a further 28 days’ notice.

The voicemail does not say “ If its 28 days then so be it.” It says, “if I have to stay the 28 days that’s all right I’ll be quite happy about that to the 14 th of June...”not a problem”.

The words used in the voicemail make it clear that the tenant was agreeing to give notice. The words do not reflect any frustration that the tenant may have felt .

The tenant subsequently moved out of the premises on 16 May 2023.

The dispute between the parties has the provision of notice of termination as the key.

Section 51 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires any notice of termination to be in writing. The notice may be revoked at any time prior to the expiry of the notice. I consider that the initial notice of termination from the tenant dated 8 February 2023 was revoked. The agreement by the landlord that they would not hold the tenant to any notice period relates to the 8 February 2023 notice from the tenant.

The tenant subsequently gave a verbal indication that she would be leaving. The landlord made it clear to her that notice would be required. The tenant responded in the voicemail providing notice and a date on which the tenancy would end. The frustration referred to by the tenant is not reflected in the wording of that message.

For the reasons given, I find that the notice of termination given by the tenant in her voicemail is applicable. That notice was not given in writing as required by s.51 RTA. However, if I do not accept that this was notice being given by the tenant, the tenant is left in the position of having given no notice.

Section 85 RTA requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlord and tenant. The Tribunal is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. In exercise of that jurisdiction, I find that the notice dated 15 May 2023 was effective notice, despite in not being in writing.

The landlord has provided a rent summary through until 11 June 2023 showing arrears of $220.00.The notice from the tenant contained in the voicemail message refers to 14 June 2023 as the last day of the tenancy.

The tenant says that previous rent summaries provided by the landlord did not show the same level of arrears.

Having reviewed the rent summary, I consider it more likely than not that it reflects the accurate rent arrears position at the end of the tenancy. The tenant is ordered to pay $220.00 to the landlord for rent.

I record that at the end of the hearing, I invited the tenant to provide any further documents that she had relating to this dispute. The tenant provided further documents. As a matter of natural justice, a copy of the documents was provided to the landlord. The landlord was given the opportunity to respond, which they did. I have issued this order without requiring further evidence from either party.

Both parties have applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful and suppression of the landlord details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful and the application for suppression is dismissed.

As the landlord has been wholly successful, I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4677631 — net $378.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$220.00	e rent arrears position at the end of the tenancy. The tenant is ordered to pay $220.00 to the landlord for rent.
Cleaning	$138.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$378.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$378.44

Margeurite Wirihana to pay [The landlord/s] $378.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

This remote teleconference was heard on 20 November 2023.

The landlord was represented by [The landlord’s representative/s].

The tenant sadly passed away on 8 October 2023.

The landlord claims are as follows; • Rent arrears. • Compensation for cleaning. • Release of the bond. • Reimbursement of the filing fee.

During the course of the hearing , Ms Wirihana consented to an order being made in favour of the landlord for cleaning. The sum claimed is $138.00.

That essentially leaves the rent arrears claim to be considered. General Law

In this matter the onus or job of proving the claims fall on the landlord.

The Tribunal is not required to set out all of the evidence proffered by the parties at the hearing, but they can be assured that it has been taken into account in reaching this decision.

The following evidence is relevant in this consideration.

On 8 February 2023, the tenant gave 28 days written notice to the landlord of her intention to terminate the tenancy. The expiry date was to be 7 March 2023.

The tenant did not move out on 7 March 2023.

The words used in the voicemail make it clear that the tenant was agreeing to give notice. The words do not reflect any frustration that the tenant may have felt .

The tenant subsequently moved out of the premises on 16 May 2023.

The dispute between the parties has the provision of notice of termination as the key.

The tenant says that previous rent summaries provided by the landlord did not show the same level of arrears.

As the landlord has been wholly successful, I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677631 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677631 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions