What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4740153 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4740153?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4740153?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4740153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10091804-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4740153 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4740153?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4740153?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4740153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10091804-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4740153 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of () immediately apportioned as follows: : :

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 1 March 2022 and ended on 30 September 2023.
The landlord’s application sought compensation for a palm tree that went missing during the tenancy ($1,000.00) and also sought $796.50 from the bond for a reason that was not specified in the application. At the hearing Ms Inglis clarified that this was the cost of some painting work in the garage.
Both parties attended the hearing in [Event location suppressed] on 1 March 2023. Palm tree
At the beginning of the tenancy there was a mature (approximately 10m) palm tree near the boundary with a neighbouring property.
In or around March 2023, the palm tree disappeared.
[The tenant/s] said that he did not notice this at the time. [The tenant/s] owns a block of land nearby, and he was having a house built. He anticipated that this tenancy would be for one year only at which point he would move into the new house. There were some delays in the build, which extended this tenancy to September 2023. [The tenant/s] said that he was frequently away from the property due to his involvement with the house build, his work, and other personal circumstances.
Ms Inglis noted the missing palm during a property inspection.
Ms Inglis submitted that the palm was removed ‘cleanly’ without any debris left where the palm had been. Ms Inglis was unsure whether the palm had been dug up and removed or cut down. [The tenant/s] clarified that it had been cut down. He said that the small amount of the remaining stump can be seen.
[The tenant/s] provided a statement from a neighbour, who states that she saw the palm being cut down by “somebody with evident skill in tree work” who was “definitely not [The tenant/s]”.
The landlord’s claim is that: a. The removal of the palm tree amounts to damage to the premises that occurred during the period of the tenancy 1 . b. Where a landlord proves that damage beyond fair wear and tear occurred during the period of the tenancy, to avoid liability the tenant must prove that the damage was not caused by themselves or by anyone who was at the premises with their consent 2 . c. If [The tenant/s] did not remove the tree himself, it is unlikely that it could have been done without his knowledge or consent. 1 The definition of “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances”, section 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 49B(8)(b) RTA d. [The tenant/s] has strongly and consistently denied removing the palm, and denied any knowledge about who removed it. [The tenant/s] is a landscape architect by profession. [The tenant/s] submitted that: e. This was always going to be a short-term tenancy whilst his house was being built. f. There was no incentive for him to remove, or pay for the removal of, the palm tree when he was only going to be living at this property for a relatively short time. g. The palm was on the edge of the property and it did not cause him any problems or concerns. h. Soon after moving into the property, he noticed a weed plant that he wanted to get rid of. Before doing so, he asked for Ms Inglis’ permission ([The tenant/s] provided emails about this). i. He was often away from the property for long periods, and since December 2022 he has been the only person residing at the property. j. It is not uncommon for trees to be vandalised / removed, often if the tree is obscuring a view, but also due to shading, leaf litter etc. k. A neighbour saw the tree being removed and provided a statement confirming that the person who removed it was not him.
It is not possible to know who removed the palm and in what circumstances. The narrow question for the Tribunal to answer is whether it is more likely than not that [The tenant/s] removed it or consented to its removal.
On the information available to me at the 1 March hearing, I am satisfied that that it is more likely that the tree was removed by someone other than [The tenant/s] or a person who was at the property with his consent.
[The tenant/s] had no reason to go to the trouble and expense of removing the palm tree. It was not causing any loss of amenity for him, and he knew that he was not going to be at this property for very long. The focus of [The tenant/s] time, energy, money, and attention was the house build. The fact that [The tenant/s] asked for permission before removing a noxious weed shows that he did not take a careless approach to the landlord’s gardens. Although the question of who removed the palm remains perplexing, I acknowledge [The tenant/s] argument that opportunistic tree felling is certainly not unheard of.
This part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Painting garage
As noted above, the landlord’s application included a claim for $796.50, but the application did not specify what the claim was for.
[The tenant/s] provided a written submission in response to the application in which he states: I note that the [Applicant] claims the sum of $796.50 from me, but does not state what that amount is intended to cover [...] In my opinion the Applicant should be held to demonstrate what the damages are that are being claimed and clear documentation of how any cost is composed.
Ms Inglis acknowledged that there was an error in the way that the application form was completed.
Ms Inglis explained that the claim relates to painting in the garage. At the end of the tenancy [The tenant/s] ‘spot painted’ over a few areas of minor damage on the garage wall. [The tenant/s] used paint that he found at the house that appeared to be a colour match, so he assumed it was the same paint that was on the garage walls. Unfortunately, when the paint dried it was a different shade, and the colour mismatch is quite obvious, as shown in Ms Inglis’ photographs.
The claim seeks $796.50 based on an invoice issued by the owners.
[The tenant/s] acknowledged that he had some liability for the painting work, but he disputed the cost claimed.
[The tenant/s] did not receive adequate notice of this part of the landlord’s claim, but to dispose of the matter without the inconvenience of a second hearing [The tenant/s] agreed to pay $455.00, which Ms Inglis agreed to. Counter-claim
[The tenant/s] indicated that he intended to file a counter-claim seeking costs, including: a. The cost of responding to the landlord’s claim and preparing for, and attending, the Tenancy Tribunal hearing. b. Loss of interest on the bond (on the basis that the bond would have been released to him at the end of the tenancy if this application had not been filed).
The Tenancy Tribunal has no power to award costs to any party except in certain limited circumstances, none of which apply in this instance 3 . If [The tenant/s] had filed a cross application seeking costs, I would have been obliged to dismiss it. Bond, filing fee, name suppression 3 Section 102 RTA
The landlord will receive $455.00 from the bond. The balance will be released to the tenant.
The landlord is not entitled to recover the filing fee in this instance.
Name suppression is granted to the tenant on the grounds that he has substantially succeeded in the proceedings 4

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 1 March 2022 and ended on 30 September 2023.

The landlord’s application sought compensation for a palm tree that went missing during the tenancy ($1,000.00) and also sought $796.50 from the bond for a reason that was not specified in the application. At the hearing Ms Inglis clarified that this was the cost of some painting work in the garage.

Both parties attended the hearing in [Event location suppressed] on 1 March 2023. Palm tree

At the beginning of the tenancy there was a mature (approximately 10m) palm tree near the boundary with a neighbouring property.

In or around March 2023, the palm tree disappeared.

[The tenant/s] said that he did not notice this at the time. [The tenant/s] owns a block of land nearby, and he was having a house built. He anticipated that this tenancy would be for one year only at which point he would move into the new house. There were some delays in the build, which extended this tenancy to September 2023. [The tenant/s] said that he was frequently away from the property due to his involvement with the house build, his work, and other personal circumstances.

Ms Inglis noted the missing palm during a property inspection.

Ms Inglis submitted that the palm was removed ‘cleanly’ without any debris left where the palm had been. Ms Inglis was unsure whether the palm had been dug up and removed or cut down. [The tenant/s] clarified that it had been cut down. He said that the small amount of the remaining stump can be seen.

[The tenant/s] provided a statement from a neighbour, who states that she saw the palm being cut down by “somebody with evident skill in tree work” who was “definitely not [The tenant/s]”.

The landlord’s claim is that: a. The removal of the palm tree amounts to damage to the premises that occurred during the period of the tenancy 1 . b. Where a landlord proves that damage beyond fair wear and tear occurred during the period of the tenancy, to avoid liability the tenant must prove that the damage was not caused by themselves or by anyone who was at the premises with their consent 2 . c. If [The tenant/s] did not remove the tree himself, it is unlikely that it could have been done without his knowledge or consent. 1 The definition of “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances”, section 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 49B(8)(b) RTA d. [The tenant/s] has strongly and consistently denied removing the palm, and denied any knowledge about who removed it. [The tenant/s] is a landscape architect by profession. [The tenant/s] submitted that: e. This was always going to be a short-term tenancy whilst his house was being built. f. There was no incentive for him to remove, or pay for the removal of, the palm tree when he was only going to be living at this property for a relatively short time. g. The palm was on the edge of the property and it did not cause him any problems or concerns. h. Soon after moving into the property, he noticed a weed plant that he wanted to get rid of. Before doing so, he asked for Ms Inglis’ permission ([The tenant/s] provided emails about this). i. He was often away from the property for long periods, and since December 2022 he has been the only person residing at the property. j. It is not uncommon for trees to be vandalised / removed, often if the tree is obscuring a view, but also due to shading, leaf litter etc. k. A neighbour saw the tree being removed and provided a statement confirming that the person who removed it was not him.

It is not possible to know who removed the palm and in what circumstances. The narrow question for the Tribunal to answer is whether it is more likely than not that [The tenant/s] removed it or consented to its removal.

On the information available to me at the 1 March hearing, I am satisfied that that it is more likely that the tree was removed by someone other than [The tenant/s] or a person who was at the property with his consent.

[The tenant/s] had no reason to go to the trouble and expense of removing the palm tree. It was not causing any loss of amenity for him, and he knew that he was not going to be at this property for very long. The focus of [The tenant/s] time, energy, money, and attention was the house build. The fact that [The tenant/s] asked for permission before removing a noxious weed shows that he did not take a careless approach to the landlord’s gardens. Although the question of who removed the palm remains perplexing, I acknowledge [The tenant/s] argument that opportunistic tree felling is certainly not unheard of.

This part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Painting garage

As noted above, the landlord’s application included a claim for $796.50, but the application did not specify what the claim was for.

[The tenant/s] provided a written submission in response to the application in which he states: I note that the [Applicant] claims the sum of $796.50 from me, but does not state what that amount is intended to cover [...] In my opinion the Applicant should be held to demonstrate what the damages are that are being claimed and clear documentation of how any cost is composed.

Ms Inglis acknowledged that there was an error in the way that the application form was completed.

Ms Inglis explained that the claim relates to painting in the garage. At the end of the tenancy [The tenant/s] ‘spot painted’ over a few areas of minor damage on the garage wall. [The tenant/s] used paint that he found at the house that appeared to be a colour match, so he assumed it was the same paint that was on the garage walls. Unfortunately, when the paint dried it was a different shade, and the colour mismatch is quite obvious, as shown in Ms Inglis’ photographs.

The claim seeks $796.50 based on an invoice issued by the owners.

[The tenant/s] acknowledged that he had some liability for the painting work, but he disputed the cost claimed.

[The tenant/s] did not receive adequate notice of this part of the landlord’s claim, but to dispose of the matter without the inconvenience of a second hearing [The tenant/s] agreed to pay $455.00, which Ms Inglis agreed to. Counter-claim

[The tenant/s] indicated that he intended to file a counter-claim seeking costs, including: a. The cost of responding to the landlord’s claim and preparing for, and attending, the Tenancy Tribunal hearing. b. Loss of interest on the bond (on the basis that the bond would have been released to him at the end of the tenancy if this application had not been filed).

The Tenancy Tribunal has no power to award costs to any party except in certain limited circumstances, none of which apply in this instance 3 . If [The tenant/s] had filed a cross application seeking costs, I would have been obliged to dismiss it. Bond, filing fee, name suppression 3 Section 102 RTA

The landlord will receive $455.00 from the bond. The balance will be released to the tenant.

The landlord is not entitled to recover the filing fee in this instance.

Name suppression is granted to the tenant on the grounds that he has substantially succeeded in the proceedings 4

Tenancy Tribunal case 4740153 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4740153 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions