How much money was awarded in case 4698409?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $47.92 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $485.00 awarded to landlord; Stated On Tenancy Agreement: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4698409?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4698409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9621606-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4698409?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $47.92 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $485.00 awarded to landlord; Stated On Tenancy Agreement: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4698409?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4698409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9621606-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 94 Charles Street, Waltham, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4698409 — Rent arrears

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4698409?

The tribunal order states: Majinka Thomson and Oliver Lange to pay Ruby Property Enterprises Limited

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4698409 — net $753.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 September 2023	$485.00	Rent arrears to 14 September 2023
stated on tenancy agreement	$200.00	stated on tenancy agreement
Lawns and Garden work: reseeding lawn (1/3 invoice	$47.92	Lawns and Garden work: reseeding lawn (1/3 invoice
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$753.36
Bond	$1,940.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$753.36

Majinka Thomson and Oliver Lange to pay Ruby Property Enterprises Limited $753.36 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,940.00 (5497095-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Ruby Property Enterprises Limited: $753.36 Majinka Thomson and Oliver Lange: $1,186.64

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Willems attended for the landlord.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 14 September 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, being $485.00. The tenants accepted, during the hearing, that this amount was owing for rent at the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy agreement also required the tenants to pay $20.00 each week towards a gardener. This cost was the subject of an earlier Tribunal order, and the tenants were unsure if that order related to ongoing obligations to pay this amount. That order was reviewed during the hearing and tenants then accepted liability for this claim which they agreed amounted to ten weeks at $20 a week, being $200.00.

The amounts ordered are agreed.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The landlord claimed $70.00 for carpet cleaning and provided an invoice from Floorkare in that amount dated 22 September 2023. A comment on the invoice stated that the remaining stain “should fade out in time”.

The tenants gave evidence that they had also had the carpet cleaned by Floorkare on the landlord’s recommendation towards the end of the tenancy (on 10 September 2023). The tenants provided an invoice for $140.00. The tenants gave evidence that the cleaning company had also advised them that the remaining stain should fade over time. This invoice included a comment that multiple treatments had been required.

I consider that the tenants did what had been asked, and could reasonably be expected, of them at the end of the tenancy in having the carpets professionally cleaned (with multiple treatments) as requested by the landlord.

The amount of $70.00 claimed for carpet cleaning is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and 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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).

During the tenancy the tenants placed a dog kennel, a trampoline, and a children’s playhouse in the garden.

The landlord has claimed $143.75 for reseeding the lawn which it says died as a consequence of the placement of these items.

The tenant accepts that the dog kennel caused the lawn to die in one area.

The tenants said that they had tried to sow new lawn themselves, but the gardener had mowed over it, reducing the chances of it germinating.

The tenants provided photographs showing the lawn and outside areas of the property. The damage caused by the dog kennel is clearly visible. Some other lawn damage is visible in the photographs but does not seem consistent with either a playhouse or a trampoline. The landlord did not provide photographs of the damage.

The tenants gave evidence that they had placed the playhouse on an area of the garden, under a tree, where the lawn was already damaged or dead.

They gave further evidence that they had offered to move the trampoline for lawn mowing and had also moved its placement occasionally to try to mitigate any damage to the grass.

I do not consider that the landlord has established that the playhouse or trampoline caused damage to the property during the tenancy.

I have ordered one third of the total account for grass seed sowing to compensate the landlord for the damage caused by the dog kennel, being $47.92.

The amount of $47.92 is proved.

The landlord has also claimed for compensation for a plumbing invoice dated 19 June 2023 in the amount of $67.28. The invoice is for investigation into the laundry tub/washing machine drainage and the dishwasher drainage.

I do not consider that investigation into these matters constitutes more than fair wear and tear. A landlord expects to have issues from time to time with appliances and plumbing in a rental property and this is part of the cost of business.

Additionally, the tenants gave evidence that they used the dishwasher and laundry tub in the usual manner and there is no evidence that the tenant carelessly or intentionally caused this damage.

The application for costs relating to plumbing matters is dismissed.

As Ruby Property Enterprises Limited has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4698409 — net $753.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 September 2023	$485.00	Rent arrears to 14 September 2023
stated on tenancy agreement	$200.00	stated on tenancy agreement
Lawns and Garden work: reseeding lawn (1/3 invoice	$47.92	Lawns and Garden work: reseeding lawn (1/3 invoice
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$753.36
Bond	$1,940.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$753.36

Order

Majinka Thomson and Oliver Lange to pay Ruby Property Enterprises Limited $753.36 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,940.00 (5497095-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Ruby Property Enterprises Limited: $753.36 Majinka Thomson and Oliver Lange: $1,186.64

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Willems attended for the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 14 September 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, being $485.00. The tenants accepted, during the hearing, that this amount was owing for rent at the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy agreement also required the tenants to pay $20.00 each week towards a gardener. This cost was the subject of an earlier Tribunal order, and the tenants were unsure if that order related to ongoing obligations to pay this amount. That order was reviewed during the hearing and tenants then accepted liability for this claim which they agreed amounted to ten weeks at $20 a week, being $200.00.
The amounts ordered are agreed.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The landlord claimed $70.00 for carpet cleaning and provided an invoice from Floorkare in that amount dated 22 September 2023. A comment on the invoice stated that the remaining stain “should fade out in time”.
The tenants gave evidence that they had also had the carpet cleaned by Floorkare on the landlord’s recommendation towards the end of the tenancy (on 10 September 2023). The tenants provided an invoice for $140.00. The tenants gave evidence that the cleaning company had also advised them that the remaining stain should fade over time. This invoice included a comment that multiple treatments had been required.
I consider that the tenants did what had been asked, and could reasonably be expected, of them at the end of the tenancy in having the carpets professionally cleaned (with multiple treatments) as requested by the landlord.
The amount of $70.00 claimed for carpet cleaning is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and 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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
During the tenancy the tenants placed a dog kennel, a trampoline, and a children’s playhouse in the garden.
The landlord has claimed $143.75 for reseeding the lawn which it says died as a consequence of the placement of these items.
The tenant accepts that the dog kennel caused the lawn to die in one area.
The tenants said that they had tried to sow new lawn themselves, but the gardener had mowed over it, reducing the chances of it germinating.
The tenants provided photographs showing the lawn and outside areas of the property. The damage caused by the dog kennel is clearly visible. Some other lawn damage is visible in the photographs but does not seem consistent with either a playhouse or a trampoline. The landlord did not provide photographs of the damage.
The tenants gave evidence that they had placed the playhouse on an area of the garden, under a tree, where the lawn was already damaged or dead.
They gave further evidence that they had offered to move the trampoline for lawn mowing and had also moved its placement occasionally to try to mitigate any damage to the grass.
I do not consider that the landlord has established that the playhouse or trampoline caused damage to the property during the tenancy.
I have ordered one third of the total account for grass seed sowing to compensate the landlord for the damage caused by the dog kennel, being $47.92.
The amount of $47.92 is proved.
The landlord has also claimed for compensation for a plumbing invoice dated 19 June 2023 in the amount of $67.28. The invoice is for investigation into the laundry tub/washing machine drainage and the dishwasher drainage.
I do not consider that investigation into these matters constitutes more than fair wear and tear. A landlord expects to have issues from time to time with appliances and plumbing in a rental property and this is part of the cost of business.
Additionally, the tenants gave evidence that they used the dishwasher and laundry tub in the usual manner and there is no evidence that the tenant carelessly or intentionally caused this damage.
The application for costs relating to plumbing matters is dismissed.
As Ruby Property Enterprises Limited has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4698409 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 94 Charles Street, Waltham, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4698409 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 94 Charles Street, Waltham, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions