What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4750530 about?

The tribunal order states: Wei Zhang must pay [the tenant] $158.64 immediately, calculated as shown in

How much money was awarded in case 4750530?

Previous Order Application 4430240 D…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $91.36 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4750530?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4750530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10691066-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4750530 about?

The tribunal order states: Wei Zhang must pay [the tenant] $158.64 immediately, calculated as shown in

How much money was awarded in case 4750530?

Previous Order Application 4430240 D…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $91.36 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4750530?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4750530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10691066-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4750530 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4750530 — net $158.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates: (From 05/09/2022 to 23/10/2022	$91.36		24. I find the landlord has proven the water rates arrears owing at the end of the tenancy and award compensation of $91.36 to the landlord for the water used…
Previous order application 4430240 dated		$250.00	Previous order application 4430240 dated
Total award	$91.36	$250.00
Net award		$158.64
Bond		$2,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$158.64

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4750530 — net $158.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates: (From 05/09/2022 to 23/10/2022	$91.36		24. I find the landlord has proven the water rates arrears owing at the end of the tenancy and award compensation of $91.36 to the landlord for the water used…
Previous order application 4430240 dated		$250.00	Previous order application 4430240 dated
Total award	$91.36	$250.00
Net award		$158.64
Bond		$2,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$158.64

Order

Wei Zhang must pay [the tenant] $158.64 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord was assisted by a mandarin interpreter. The landlord constantly raised her voice throughout the proceedings, refused to break her responses and evidence into smaller sentences to allow the interpreter to accurately interpret what she was saying. Consequently, the interpreter was often forced to summarise her responses and the evidence she was trying to give.
The tenant and landlord continually talked over the top of each other also making it hard for me to get the information I required to decide the landlord’s claims. It also posed considerable difficulties for the interpreter.
No matter how hard I tried to get the parties not to speak over one another and to break their responses to my questions/ evidence they were giving into smaller parts, they continued to speak over one another. Background
The tenant’s claims were heard by Adjudicator Greene on 24 November 2023 under application number 4430240.
Adjudicator Greene awarded the tenant $250.00 compensation for loss of quiet enjoyment of the tenancy. The landlord has not paid the tenant the amount ordered. This amount has been incorporated into this Order for enforcement purposes.
The tenant previously rented premises from the same landlord. The tenant says the landlord ‘moved her to this property because she wanted more rent from the other property’. The landlord says she moved the tenant because of the way the tenant lived. She made overt inappropriate comments about the tenant living in a way she didn’t agree with, admonished the tenant’s her daughter, and stated repeatedly that the premises were messy and dirty.
At the 24 November 2023 hearing, the landlord claimed she has lodged cross applications. She had not. This application was originally lodged on 21 December 2023. This application is in relation to 158 Archers Road, Glenfield and not the prior tenancy at 11 Carina Crescent, Torbay
The landlord sought, and was granted (due to illness), an adjournment of the hearing of the tenant’s application on 28 August 2023. The day before this hearing she sought an adjournment again because she wanted to complete her cross application(s).
Adjudicator Greene declined the adjournment request. The tenant’s application was filed on 1 November 2022, more than a year prior to the hearing. Tribunal time is valuable, and Adjudicator Greene stated in the 24 November 2023 Order the landlord’s reasons for a further adjournment were not sufficient for one to be granted.
The landlord’s application was scheduled to be heard on 23 April 2024. Shortly before the hearing Adjudicator Greene received a request for an adjournment based on the death of the landlord’s mother-in-law. A death certificate was provided to support the landlord’s last-minute application. I note the mother-in- law passed away in China the day of the hearing and the landlord had to make arrangements for the family to travel back to China.
In Adjudicator Greene’s 23 April 2024 Order he states “The landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to support her claims. I have made a direction for her to provide that evidence at least 10 days before the next hearing”.
On 26 July 2024, I issued a direction to the landlord that she had until 29 July 2024 to submit the evidence requested by Adjudicator Greene and if the landlord has not submitted, it by this date I would dismiss the matter.
Just before the close of business on 29 July 2024, the landlord submitted a plethora of pictures, invoices and documents that related to both of the tenancies the tenant had held with the landlord and she was seeking compensation for claims that related to both of these tenancies. The evidence was all mixed up and she was unable to clearly prove her claims with the inaccurate and incomplete evidence she produced.
During the hearing, the landlord stated the registry had told her she had submitted all the evidence she required to prove her case. The notes in our case management system prove the registrar confirmed receipt of the documents the landlord filed and did not state that these documents were sufficient to prove the landlord’s case.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy started on 29 August 2022. It was a fixed term tenancy until 27 February 2023. The tenant gave notice to end the tenancy on 12 October 2022, says she paid rent to 9 November 2022, moved out on 22 October 2022 and returned to clean and tidy the premises and leave the key on 23 October 2022. She says she never returned to the premises after this date.
The tenancy ended on 9 November 2022.
The landlord provided rent records from 10 March 2021 to 9 November 2022 which do not relate to this tenancy, as it did not commence until 29 August 2022. One of the rental periods in the rent summary starts on 25 August 2022 and goes to 31 August 2022, with the rent for that period being due on 25 August 2022, prior to the tenancy starting. The tenant disputes this rent summary and says it is inaccurate. The landlord could not produce any bank statements that showed me what payments the tenant had made to her and when, or if, they had stopped at any time during the tenancy.
I dismissed the landlord’s claim for rent arrears for lack of evidence to prove the debt she says the tenant owes her.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord produced a water rates invoice for the period 5 September 2022 to 4 October 2022 for $73.36 and for the period 5 October 2022 to 31 October 2022 for $25.90.
The tenant has proven she left and never returned to the premises on 23 October 2022 and therefore cannot be held liable for the water rates beyond that date. The second water rates invoice stated the billing period was for 26 days. The tenant had occupation of the premises for 18 of those days, to 23 October 2022. I prorated the $25.90 by dividing the amount by 26 days and multiplying that amount by 18 days. This totals $18.00.
The tenant says she paid these water rates invoices but could not produce proof of payment.
I find the landlord has proven the water rates arrears owing at the end of the tenancy and award compensation of $91.36 to the landlord for the water used by the tenant in the period 5 September to 23 October 2022.

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 landlord says the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all her rubbish.
She also claims the tenant did not return the keys to the premise.
The tenant says the photographs the landlord produced were not taken after she had cleaned and vacated the premises and produced photographs that showed the items the landlord claimed were rubbish left at the premise had been moved to the tenant’s new home. Further, the tenant produced photographs of the condition of the premise when her tenancy started and that proved the house was not in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
In addition, the tenant proved that one part of the rubbish the landlord was seeking compensation for removing was a door that the landlord had taken down during a repair and not disposed of.
The landlord also produced photographs the tenant stated were from the other rental property and the landlord confirmed the $4,197.50 cleaning compensation the landlord was seeking was from both rental properties.
When told the hearing was only in relation to the second tenancy, she adjusted the claim for compensation of $2,070.00 for an invoice for cleaning, rubbish removal from inside and outside the premise, changing the lock and pest control services The invoice was dated 30 October 2022.
The tenant then produced photographic evidence that disputed the rubbish the landlord claimed she removed belonged to the tenant and proved that at least some of the rubbish was from the prior tenants and from repairs and maintenance undertaken by the landlord.
Further, the tenant produced evidence she had moved into the premise the same day the previous tenants were moving out and that there was no entry inspection report or photographs of the state of the premise at the start of her tenancy as a result.
The landlord pointed to a largely blank entry inspection report that was not signed by the tenant and told me that proved there was nothing wrong with the premise at the start of the tenancy. There was one tick on the report by the lounge window section but no notation about what damage/defect the tick referred to on the otherwise blank inspection report.
The tenant produced photographs of a broken lounge window, issues with a door and rubbish left behind by the previous tenants that were present when she moved in that prove there were other issues with the premise and that it was not reasonably clean and tidy nor was it rubbish free.
The landlord did not have an exit inspection report or exit inspection photographs or a comparison entry inspection report and photographs.
The landlord has not produced any evidence about the alleged pest control issue or why she says the tenant is liable for $200.00 to have the premises treated for pests.
I am satisfied the landlord has not produced sufficient evidence to prove the tenant should be liable for the $2,070.00 costs she is seeking for rubbish removal, cleaning, pest control and protective clothing, masks and rubbish bags and dismiss her claims accordingly. Name suppression and filing fee
The tenant sought non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case (See s95A of the RTA).
The tenant has substantially succeeded in her defence to this application. I do not consider publication of her name and identifying details are in the public interest or justified because of the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of the tenant’s name is ordered.
The landlord also made an application for her name and identifying details to be suppressed. The landlord stated the issues in this proceeding stemmed from the tenant being dirty and disorganised and constantly stated she was lying and had falsified her photographic evidence. I disagree, the parties have had a fractious relationship where the landlord has been found to have breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the property and privacy. There is also considerable doubt she had lodge the bond with the bond centre prior to the 27 November 2023 hearing. She made unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations and often highly inflammatory personal statements about her disgust at the way the tenant lived and raised her daughter. She has clearly failed to retain accurate business records and then insists the Tribunal find in her favour based on the scant and inaccurate information she did provide.
I am satisfied that the public interest in this matter outweighs any duress publishing the landlord’s name could result in when it she is seeking to let out properties to other tenants in the future. I therefore decline to grant the landlord’s suppression of its name and identifying details.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in her claims. As such, I dismiss her claim for reimbursement of the filing fee. Comment
It was apparent to Adjudicator Greene at the 27 November 2023 hearing and became apparent to the me during the 8 August 2024 hearing, that the landlord is not fully aware of a landlord’s responsibilities under the RTA. While not an advisory body, the Tribunal recommends that the landlord has any future tenancies managed by a professional property manager.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4750530 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4750530 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions