What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4734829?

The tribunal order states: Ronnie Cantos Borbon and Aiza Ceros Carlon are to pay Ariel Santos $560.00

How much money was awarded in case 4734829?

And The Landlord’S Break Fee Costs O…: $380.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4734829?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Rubbish Removal.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4734829?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9933932-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4734829?

The tribunal order states: Ronnie Cantos Borbon and Aiza Ceros Carlon are to pay Ariel Santos $560.00

How much money was awarded in case 4734829?

And The Landlord’S Break Fee Costs O…: $380.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4734829?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Rubbish Removal.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4734829?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9933932-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 London Terrace, Awapuni, Palmerston North 4412 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4734829 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4734829. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
from the bond, being the costs of disposing of the tenant’s possessions of	$180.00		from the bond, being the costs of disposing of the tenant’s possessions of
and the landlord’s break fee costs of	$380.00		and the landlord’s break fee costs of

Order

Ronnie Cantos Borbon and Aiza Ceros Carlon are to pay Ariel Santos $560.00 from the bond, being the costs of disposing of the tenant’s possessions of $180.00 and the landlord’s break fee costs of $380.00.
The Bond Centre is to pay $560.00 from the bond of $2,200.00 (3413550-007) to Ariel Santos immediately.
The balance of the bond of $1,640.00 is to remain at the Bond Centre.
The parties have until 5 pm Friday 16 February 2024 to provide such further evidence and make submissions about the amounts of rent paid by emailing palmerstonnorthtt@justice.govt.nz using the reference 4734829 in the heading.
The hearing is adjourned for a telephone hearing regarding the rent claims only on the next available date after 16 February 2024.

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing in person. The landlord attended the hearing by telephone. An interpreter was present to assist both parties.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages for the tenant exceeding the number of tenants in the property and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and rent which they believe has been over paid, together with reimbursement of the filing fee. Standard of proof
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the parties must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
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 testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, I am not saying that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02: “... [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.” Landlord’s claim for removal of rubbish and tenant’s possessions
The landlord provided photographic evidence of items left behind by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepted that the items were theirs and were left at the property.
The landlord is entitled to his reasonable expenses in disposing of these items and the sum of $180.00 is awarded to the landlord. Landlord’s claim for breaking the fixed term tenancy
The parties had entered into a fixed term tenancy. The landlord was under no obligation to agree to the tenant’s request to end the tenancy early. The landlord responded quickly and achieved a good outcome for the tenant by finding a new tenant quickly.
The landlord is entitled to his reasonable costs in dealing with the request to break the fixed term.
I accept the landlord’s claim for $380.00 being a reasonable amount for dealing with the tenant’s request within a very short timeframe. Landlord’s claim for exemplary damages
The landlord claimed exemplary damages for the tenant’s breach of section 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) which provides: “Where the tenancy agreement specifies a maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant shall ensure that no more than that number ordinarily reside in the premises at any time during the tenancy.” [My emphasis]
As the tenancy agreement does not specify a maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant cannot have been in breach of section 40(3) RTA.
The landlord’s claim is therefore dismissed.

How much is owed for rent?

The parties entered into a fixed term tenancy starting on 20 January 2023 and ending on 20 January 2024.
The tenant notified the landlord on 15 March 2023 that he was moving from Palmerston North to a new job and gave formal notice on 4 April 2023 that the tenant would be ending the tenancy on 21 April 2023.
A fixed term tenancy is a contract. The tenant was bound under that contract to pay rent for the property until 20 January 2024. The landlord was under no obligation to release the tenant from the contract. However, the landlord clearly tried to accommodate the tenant’s wish to end the contract early.
The tenant had recommended a new tenant to the landlord. The landlord did not accept this person as an acceptable tenant. He is entitled to do so. The landlord does not have to accept anybody recommended by a departing tenant. The decision in selecting a new tenant is the landlord’s alone.
The landlord provided evidence in the form of a tenancy agreement that a new tenancy was entered into beginning on 1 May 2023.
I accept this evidence in determining the date on which the tenancy between the parties ended.
The term of the tenancy was from 20 January 2023 until 30 April 2023. This is the period for which the tenant is liable for rent.
The tenant had provided screenshots of payments from their bank account to the landlord’s bank account as evidence of rental paid. These did not cover the whole term of the tenancy, in particular, the start of the tenancy.
The landlord had not provided a rent schedule of all payments received and the periods covered, including a total of arrears.
The Tribunal was not therefore in a position to determine this issue between the parties.
I allowed the landlord a limited time to prepare and submit the required schedule which he has done. He also included a copy of his bank records showing deposits from the tenant.
The landlord’s schedule has been forwarded to the tenant for their scrutiny.
There are discrepancies between the landlord’s schedule and the tenant’s bank records.
As the tenant has not had an opportunity to scrutinise the landlord’s schedule, it is appropriate that the tenant be given a period within which to study the landlord’s schedule, check their bank records and provide such further evidence and submissions to the Tribunal as they wish.
The landlord’s statement does not include payments which the tenant’s screenshots show were made to his account. The landlord may wish to comment on those discrepancies, provide further evidence and make further submissions to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal is not therefore in a position to make a determination regarding the parties’ claims over the rent. It is appropriate that they each be given a final opportunity to provide any further evidence or submissions so that a decision can be made.
The parties must file any further evidence and comments regarding the rent payments by 5 pm Friday 16 February 2023 by emailing it to palmerstonnorthtt@justice.govt.nz
A hearing by telephone will then be held so that this final matter can be determined. This means neither party will need to attend at Court. The interpreter will be made available for this hearing.
The parties will be notified of the time and date of the telephone hearing in due course.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4734829. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
from the bond, being the costs of disposing of the tenant’s possessions of	$180.00		from the bond, being the costs of disposing of the tenant’s possessions of
and the landlord’s break fee costs of	$380.00		and the landlord’s break fee costs of

Order

Ronnie Cantos Borbon and Aiza Ceros Carlon are to pay Ariel Santos $560.00 from the bond, being the costs of disposing of the tenant’s possessions of $180.00 and the landlord’s break fee costs of $380.00.
The Bond Centre is to pay $560.00 from the bond of $2,200.00 (3413550-007) to Ariel Santos immediately.
The balance of the bond of $1,640.00 is to remain at the Bond Centre.
The parties have until 5 pm Friday 16 February 2024 to provide such further evidence and make submissions about the amounts of rent paid by emailing palmerstonnorthtt@justice.govt.nz using the reference 4734829 in the heading.
The hearing is adjourned for a telephone hearing regarding the rent claims only on the next available date after 16 February 2024.

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing in person. The landlord attended the hearing by telephone. An interpreter was present to assist both parties.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages for the tenant exceeding the number of tenants in the property and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and rent which they believe has been over paid, together with reimbursement of the filing fee. Standard of proof
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the parties must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
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 testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, I am not saying that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02: “... [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.” Landlord’s claim for removal of rubbish and tenant’s possessions
The landlord provided photographic evidence of items left behind by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepted that the items were theirs and were left at the property.
The landlord is entitled to his reasonable expenses in disposing of these items and the sum of $180.00 is awarded to the landlord. Landlord’s claim for breaking the fixed term tenancy
The parties had entered into a fixed term tenancy. The landlord was under no obligation to agree to the tenant’s request to end the tenancy early. The landlord responded quickly and achieved a good outcome for the tenant by finding a new tenant quickly.
The landlord is entitled to his reasonable costs in dealing with the request to break the fixed term.
I accept the landlord’s claim for $380.00 being a reasonable amount for dealing with the tenant’s request within a very short timeframe. Landlord’s claim for exemplary damages
The landlord claimed exemplary damages for the tenant’s breach of section 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) which provides: “Where the tenancy agreement specifies a maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant shall ensure that no more than that number ordinarily reside in the premises at any time during the tenancy.” [My emphasis]
As the tenancy agreement does not specify a maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant cannot have been in breach of section 40(3) RTA.
The landlord’s claim is therefore dismissed.

How much is owed for rent?

The parties entered into a fixed term tenancy starting on 20 January 2023 and ending on 20 January 2024.
The tenant notified the landlord on 15 March 2023 that he was moving from Palmerston North to a new job and gave formal notice on 4 April 2023 that the tenant would be ending the tenancy on 21 April 2023.
A fixed term tenancy is a contract. The tenant was bound under that contract to pay rent for the property until 20 January 2024. The landlord was under no obligation to release the tenant from the contract. However, the landlord clearly tried to accommodate the tenant’s wish to end the contract early.
The tenant had recommended a new tenant to the landlord. The landlord did not accept this person as an acceptable tenant. He is entitled to do so. The landlord does not have to accept anybody recommended by a departing tenant. The decision in selecting a new tenant is the landlord’s alone.
The landlord provided evidence in the form of a tenancy agreement that a new tenancy was entered into beginning on 1 May 2023.
I accept this evidence in determining the date on which the tenancy between the parties ended.
The term of the tenancy was from 20 January 2023 until 30 April 2023. This is the period for which the tenant is liable for rent.
The tenant had provided screenshots of payments from their bank account to the landlord’s bank account as evidence of rental paid. These did not cover the whole term of the tenancy, in particular, the start of the tenancy.
The landlord had not provided a rent schedule of all payments received and the periods covered, including a total of arrears.
The Tribunal was not therefore in a position to determine this issue between the parties.
I allowed the landlord a limited time to prepare and submit the required schedule which he has done. He also included a copy of his bank records showing deposits from the tenant.
The landlord’s schedule has been forwarded to the tenant for their scrutiny.
There are discrepancies between the landlord’s schedule and the tenant’s bank records.
As the tenant has not had an opportunity to scrutinise the landlord’s schedule, it is appropriate that the tenant be given a period within which to study the landlord’s schedule, check their bank records and provide such further evidence and submissions to the Tribunal as they wish.
The landlord’s statement does not include payments which the tenant’s screenshots show were made to his account. The landlord may wish to comment on those discrepancies, provide further evidence and make further submissions to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal is not therefore in a position to make a determination regarding the parties’ claims over the rent. It is appropriate that they each be given a final opportunity to provide any further evidence or submissions so that a decision can be made.
The parties must file any further evidence and comments regarding the rent payments by 5 pm Friday 16 February 2023 by emailing it to palmerstonnorthtt@justice.govt.nz
A hearing by telephone will then be held so that this final matter can be determined. This means neither party will need to attend at Court. The interpreter will be made available for this hearing.
The parties will be notified of the time and date of the telephone hearing in due course.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4734829 — Rent arrears at 5 London Terrace, Awapuni, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4734829 — Rent arrears at 5 London Terrace, Awapuni, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions