What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4743089?

The tribunal order states: Mal Bryan Wilson must pay Jagmeet Singh and Sukhjit Kaur $754.35

How much money was awarded in case 4743089?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,175.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $149.99 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,008.21 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4743089?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4743089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10457848-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4743089?

The tribunal order states: Mal Bryan Wilson must pay Jagmeet Singh and Sukhjit Kaur $754.35

How much money was awarded in case 4743089?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,175.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $149.99 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,008.21 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4743089?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4743089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10457848-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

581 Great South Road, Rosehill, Papakura 2113 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4743089 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4743089 — net $754.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,175.71	2. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee fol…
Water rates	$1,008.21	3. The Tenant has applied for refund of the bond and compensation.
Rubbish removal: Disposing of wooden bins	$149.99	Rubbish removal: Disposing of wooden bins
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$754.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$754.35

Order

Mal Bryan Wilson must pay Jagmeet Singh and Sukhjit Kaur $754.35 immediately, being rent arrears to 8 November 2023.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (6502127-004) to Jagmeet Singh and Sukhjit Kaur immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The Tenant has applied for refund of the bond and compensation.

How much is owed for rent and water rates arrears?

The tenancy ended 8 November 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices to prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The Tenant disputed the rent arrears claiming they did not owe any rent arrears because they paid a week in advance when they moved in and they had made some repairs to the property which the Landlord verbally agreed to reduce their rent by $40.00.
The Tenant did not produce any evidence of a rent summary to show their rent payments each week so that a comparison could be made with the Landlord’s rent summary. The Landlord however provided a rent summary showing all the payments missed and paid by the Tenant.
The Tenant disputed the water rates advising that they did not receive any water rates notices. The water rates were addressed to the Landlord and was sent to the property address but they did not open these letters because it was not addressed to the Tenants. There was also a water leak in the property and the Tenant was advised by their lawyer not to pay the arrears because of the other repairs that were not fixed by the Landlord.
The Landlord refuted this and submitted that water bills were always sent to the address in the Landlords name. At the start of the tenancy, these were opened by the Tenant and paid by them. The water rates arrears were incurred later on in the tenancy.
In considering the evidence the landlord has provided evidence of a rent summary which shows it is more likely than not that the Tenant stopped paying rent. The Tenant stated they were not happy with repairs that had not been attended to by the Landlord which may have been their reason to cease payment. I find the Landlord’s rent summary supports the rent arrears owing by the Tenant however the Tenant had no evidence to support his claim of no rent arrears.
In terms of the water rates arrears, I find the Tenant acknowledged that they stopped paying water rates in their evidence, so it is more likely than not that water rates arrears were owing. They also paid water initially and stopped when they were advised to by their lawyer. The Landlord has provided water rates invoices to prove the amount owing.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claimed the Tenant did not remove two rubbish bins which they left on the front berm when they vacated. An email was provided from the Landlord indicating the Tenants refusal to remove them and photographs of the bins sitting on the berms. The Landlord provided an invoice to show the costs of labour and transport to remove them.
The Tenant submitted that he did leave the two rubbish bins on the berm because it was not theirs. These were behind the garage when they first moved in.
In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the Tenant left two bins behind on the property. There was nothing provided by the Tenant to prove the bins were not his such as an email during the tenancy reporting this to the Landlord. Also, if the bins did not belong to the Tenant, they did not state this in their email to the Landlord when asked to remove it. The Tenant just told the Landlord to remove it instead.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the deck and kitchen tiles.
Deck- The Landlord claimed the front deck timber had rotted because the Tenant placed several plants on the deck and the moisture caused the timber to rot. Photographs were provided of the deck and places where the wood appeared damaged. The Landlord submitted a builder advised him the cause of the deck was the plant moisture however there was no evidence from this builder to substantiate this claim. The Landlord claimed $6463.00 to remove the old deck and replace it with a new one. The house was built around 1983.
The Tenant disputed this claim, submitting that he was a qualified builder at one stage of his career and he noticed when he first moved in that the deck was not treated. He raised this immediately with the Landlord and there was no action taken even after a year. He did not provide any evidence of his qualifications as a builder to make the assessment.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord has not proved that the Tenant caused the damage to the deck because there were no photographs of the deck at the start of the tenancy showing the rotting started when the Tenants moved in. There was also nothing from the builder to substantiate that the cause of the timber rotting was the Tenants plants. The house is also over 20 years old and it is unknown how old this deck is or whether it was already in need of repairs. From the Tenant emails to the Landlord, they had made complaints about the deck timber and its safety since the start of the tenancy.
For these reasons, I find the Landlord has not proved their claim and this is dismissed.
Stained tiles- The Landlord claimed there were stained tiles in the dining room which needed replacing and photographs were provided. It was difficult to see the stains through the photographs as the tiles were patterned and there was no photographs at the start of the tenancy to show these stains were caused by the Tenant.
For this reason, the claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages
The Landlord has claimed exemplary damages because the Tenant did not pay their rent or water on time. As a result the Landlord submitted they suffered mental stress from the impact on his mortgage payments.
The Tenant disputed the failure to pay rent and submitted they paid rent on time.
In considering the evidence, exemplary damages are only awarded for certain unlawful acts defined by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Rent arrears and water rates arrears are not unlawful acts.
The claim is dismissed. Tenants claims
The Tenant claimed that the Landlord did not attend to repairs for the front and back deck, the light and fan of the oven, the dishwasher, smoke alarm battery and water leakage. In support of this claim, the Tenant had a handwritten summary but no further evidence such as photographs, evidence from an independent electrician or a builder suggesting the cause or providing quotes for repairs. The claim also did not specify the monetary amount the Tenant was seeking in compensation.
The claim is dismissed for insufficient support evidence and lack of clarity in terms of compensation.
As Jagmeet Singh, Sukhjit Kaur have been substantially successful with their claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.
Name suppression is not granted as neither party has sought this.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4743089 — net $754.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,175.71	2. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee fol…
Water rates	$1,008.21	3. The Tenant has applied for refund of the bond and compensation.
Rubbish removal: Disposing of wooden bins	$149.99	Rubbish removal: Disposing of wooden bins
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$754.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$754.35

Order

Mal Bryan Wilson must pay Jagmeet Singh and Sukhjit Kaur $754.35 immediately, being rent arrears to 8 November 2023.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (6502127-004) to Jagmeet Singh and Sukhjit Kaur immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The Tenant has applied for refund of the bond and compensation.

How much is owed for rent and water rates arrears?

The tenancy ended 8 November 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices to prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The Tenant disputed the rent arrears claiming they did not owe any rent arrears because they paid a week in advance when they moved in and they had made some repairs to the property which the Landlord verbally agreed to reduce their rent by $40.00.
The Tenant did not produce any evidence of a rent summary to show their rent payments each week so that a comparison could be made with the Landlord’s rent summary. The Landlord however provided a rent summary showing all the payments missed and paid by the Tenant.
The Tenant disputed the water rates advising that they did not receive any water rates notices. The water rates were addressed to the Landlord and was sent to the property address but they did not open these letters because it was not addressed to the Tenants. There was also a water leak in the property and the Tenant was advised by their lawyer not to pay the arrears because of the other repairs that were not fixed by the Landlord.
The Landlord refuted this and submitted that water bills were always sent to the address in the Landlords name. At the start of the tenancy, these were opened by the Tenant and paid by them. The water rates arrears were incurred later on in the tenancy.
In considering the evidence the landlord has provided evidence of a rent summary which shows it is more likely than not that the Tenant stopped paying rent. The Tenant stated they were not happy with repairs that had not been attended to by the Landlord which may have been their reason to cease payment. I find the Landlord’s rent summary supports the rent arrears owing by the Tenant however the Tenant had no evidence to support his claim of no rent arrears.
In terms of the water rates arrears, I find the Tenant acknowledged that they stopped paying water rates in their evidence, so it is more likely than not that water rates arrears were owing. They also paid water initially and stopped when they were advised to by their lawyer. The Landlord has provided water rates invoices to prove the amount owing.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claimed the Tenant did not remove two rubbish bins which they left on the front berm when they vacated. An email was provided from the Landlord indicating the Tenants refusal to remove them and photographs of the bins sitting on the berms. The Landlord provided an invoice to show the costs of labour and transport to remove them.
The Tenant submitted that he did leave the two rubbish bins on the berm because it was not theirs. These were behind the garage when they first moved in.
In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the Tenant left two bins behind on the property. There was nothing provided by the Tenant to prove the bins were not his such as an email during the tenancy reporting this to the Landlord. Also, if the bins did not belong to the Tenant, they did not state this in their email to the Landlord when asked to remove it. The Tenant just told the Landlord to remove it instead.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the deck and kitchen tiles.
Deck- The Landlord claimed the front deck timber had rotted because the Tenant placed several plants on the deck and the moisture caused the timber to rot. Photographs were provided of the deck and places where the wood appeared damaged. The Landlord submitted a builder advised him the cause of the deck was the plant moisture however there was no evidence from this builder to substantiate this claim. The Landlord claimed $6463.00 to remove the old deck and replace it with a new one. The house was built around 1983.
The Tenant disputed this claim, submitting that he was a qualified builder at one stage of his career and he noticed when he first moved in that the deck was not treated. He raised this immediately with the Landlord and there was no action taken even after a year. He did not provide any evidence of his qualifications as a builder to make the assessment.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord has not proved that the Tenant caused the damage to the deck because there were no photographs of the deck at the start of the tenancy showing the rotting started when the Tenants moved in. There was also nothing from the builder to substantiate that the cause of the timber rotting was the Tenants plants. The house is also over 20 years old and it is unknown how old this deck is or whether it was already in need of repairs. From the Tenant emails to the Landlord, they had made complaints about the deck timber and its safety since the start of the tenancy.
For these reasons, I find the Landlord has not proved their claim and this is dismissed.
Stained tiles- The Landlord claimed there were stained tiles in the dining room which needed replacing and photographs were provided. It was difficult to see the stains through the photographs as the tiles were patterned and there was no photographs at the start of the tenancy to show these stains were caused by the Tenant.
For this reason, the claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages
The Landlord has claimed exemplary damages because the Tenant did not pay their rent or water on time. As a result the Landlord submitted they suffered mental stress from the impact on his mortgage payments.
The Tenant disputed the failure to pay rent and submitted they paid rent on time.
In considering the evidence, exemplary damages are only awarded for certain unlawful acts defined by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Rent arrears and water rates arrears are not unlawful acts.
The claim is dismissed. Tenants claims
The Tenant claimed that the Landlord did not attend to repairs for the front and back deck, the light and fan of the oven, the dishwasher, smoke alarm battery and water leakage. In support of this claim, the Tenant had a handwritten summary but no further evidence such as photographs, evidence from an independent electrician or a builder suggesting the cause or providing quotes for repairs. The claim also did not specify the monetary amount the Tenant was seeking in compensation.
The claim is dismissed for insufficient support evidence and lack of clarity in terms of compensation.
As Jagmeet Singh, Sukhjit Kaur have been substantially successful with their claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.
Name suppression is not granted as neither party has sought this.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4743089 — Rent arrears at 581 Great South Road, Rosehill, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4743089 — Rent arrears at 581 Great South Road, Rosehill, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates arrears?

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates arrears?

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

Frequently asked questions