What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4755190 about?

The tribunal order states: Li Fang Li must pay [The landlord/s] $660.44 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4755190?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,280.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4755190?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4755190?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10812013-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4755190 about?

The tribunal order states: Li Fang Li must pay [The landlord/s] $660.44 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4755190?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,280.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4755190?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4755190?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10812013-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 1, Unit/Flat 6, 115 Church Street, Onehunga, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4755190 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4755190 — net $660.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,280.00	9. The claim in respect of rent arrears is proven.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$660.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$660.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4755190 — net $660.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,280.00	9. The claim in respect of rent arrears is proven.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$660.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$660.44

Order

Li Fang Li must pay [The landlord/s] $660.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is allowed. All other claims are dismissed.
The tenant’s cross application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The parties were assisted by the court appointed mandarin interpreter.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Before I consider the specific claims, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the parties to establish their respective claims on “the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
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 evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The parties submitted substantial documentation with their online application. There was also an oral hearing. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented; however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 16 November 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant does not agree. She says that she moved out on 14 November 2023. She says that she used the bond to pay the last 2 weeks rent. A check of the bond details confirm that the bond is sitting with the bond centre.
Having sighted the landlord’s rent ledger I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for this debt.
The claim in respect of rent arrears is proven.

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 claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord says that she paid a cleaner. She paid in cash and does not have a receipt. She says that it took a cleaner 4 hours to clean.
The tenant says that she left the place clean and tidy. She says that this is confirmed by video. The landlord says that the tenant is not telling the truth and did not leave the place clean and tidy.
The landlord has not provided a proper tax invoice for the cleaning cost. Other than the landlord’s oral evidence that she paid the cleaner in cash I do not have any other evidence in support of the loss suffered by the landlord.
The claim for cleaning must therefore be 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. 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 landlord claims the following damage compensation. The landlord has only provided quotes for the individual claims. The landlord’s entry photographs were taken on 11 March 2023 (approximately one month prior to the start of the tenancy) and the exit photographs taken on 16 November 2023. Damage to wooden bedframe:
The landlord is claiming $520.00 for damage to a wooden bed frame. The landlord says that the quote is from Trademe for the same type of bed frame. The bed frame was 9 years old.
The tenant does not agree with this claim. She says that someone got into her room and damaged everything over time.
The landlord says that the tenant is not telling the truth. The damage was not there before. The landlord says that no one went into her room. Mattress damage:
The landlord says that the tenant damaged a mattress. She is claiming $520.00. The mattress is 9 years old. The landlord obtained this quote from Trademe for the same type of mattress.
The tenant says that it was not her who caused the damage. The tenant says that someone has gained entry into her room. She says that the landlord left a key downstairs and as a result someone has obtained the key and entered her room. Bedside table and study table damage:
The landlord says that the tenant wilfully damaged the tables with a knife. The tenant says that someone damaged the tables, but it was not her. The tables were approximately 9 years old. The quote of $360.00 was obtained from Trademe for similar types of tables. Bookshelves:
The landlord is claiming $200.00 for damage to these items. She says the damage was knife scratches. The bookshelves were approximately 9 years old. The quote was from Trademe for similar types of furniture. The tenant says that she does not agree with the damage to these items. Sofa, stool and cushion damage:
The landlord is claiming damage and seeks $180.00 for these items. She says they were cut with a knife. The items are approximately 9 years old. The quote was from Trademe for similar items.
The tenant does not agree with this claim. The tenant says that the furniture was not perfect at the time she moved in. She says that someone has damaged her property and the property of the landlord. Damage to quilt, sheets and mattress protector:
The landlord is claiming $80.00 for damage caused to the quilt, sheets and mattress protector. She says that the damage was caused by a knife. The amount is a quote from a second-hand shop. The items were all approximately 9 years old.
The tenant does not agree with this claim. Says that someone else has done this. Damage to curtains and window louvre:
The landlord is claiming $520.00 for curtain and window louvre damage. She says it is a customised set she had made approximately 3 years ago. The landlord says that a knife had been used to damage the curtains. The window louvre had also been damaged with a knife.
The tenant does not agree with this claim. The tenant says that she notified the landlord of damage to her property. The landlord says that she notified her of damage to her own property but not the landlord’s property. Damage to toilet seat and cover:
The landlord says that the tenant damaged the toilet seat. The landlord says she paid a plumber cash to replace it. She says that the seat had a hole in it. The tenant says that the toilet seat was not broken on the day she vacated. She also says that she has a video taken on 14 November 2023. The video clearly shows damage. I sighted the video during the hearing. Damage to mirror:
The landlord is claiming $480.00 for damage to a mirror. The landlord says there were scratches to the mirror. She obtained a quote from a builder who quoted this amount. She has not had the items replaced. The tenant does not agree with the claim. Age of mirror is same age as house (approximately 20 years). Damage to bedroom door and window:
The landlord is claiming $520.00 for damage to a bedroom door and window damage. She obtained the quote from renovation people. The tenant does not agree with the claim. Says that the landlord is blackmailing her. Bedroom wall:
The landlord is claiming $520.00 for damage to a bedroom wall. The quote was obtained from a renovation person. The tenant does not agree with this claim. Damage to carpet:
The landlord says that the tenant has damaged the carpet in her bedroom. There was also a hole in the carpet by what appeared to be damage by a knife. The tenant says that this was damaged when she moved in. Damage to lamp and lampshade:
The landlord says that the tenant damaged the lamps and the lampshades by what appears to be a knife. This quote is her own estimate. The amount claimed is half the price of the original purchase price. The lamp was purchased new approximately 5 years ago. The tenant does not accept his claim. Analysis:
Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. If an item has to be replaced earlier because of tenant damage, and is replaced with a newer or better item, then the compensation needs to be adjusted to reflect that.
A landlord should not be in a better position after a claim in the Tribunal, then the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred.
The Tribunal often considers the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The Inland Revenue Department (IRD) has published general depreciation rates for residential rental property chattels. This gives a guide to the expected useful life of various items including, for example, carpet (8 years), curtains (8 years), fridges and freezers (8 years), domestic vacuum cleaners (3 years), heat pumps (10 years).
The Tribunal rarely accepts claims for damage compensation where the landlord has only provided quotes. The onus is on the landlord to show actual loss, and this is usually achieved by the filing of tax invoices and expense receipts. It is even more difficult to assess when expenses are paid in cash and no receipt provided. It must also be noted that a large percentage of the damaged items are of an age where depreciation would reduce the value to zero.
In the absence of actual expense claims and payment receipts the landlord’s damage claims are dismissed.
The landlord handed up 4 witness statements during hearing. These were not provided prior to the hearing. They were also not provided to the tenant prior to the hearing. The witnesses were also not present at court.
I have not had the opportunity to consider these and neither had the tenant. While I acknowledge receipt of these documents however out of fairness to the tenant I do not take these into account when reaching my decision.
Because [The applicant/s] has partially succeeded with the claim I will reimburse the filing fee.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is partially successful – see section 95A RTA. Tenant’s cross application: Rent overpayment:
The tenant is claiming that she paid too much in rent. She says that when she viewed the room it was $300.00 per week but when she signed the agreement it was $320.00. Says she was forced to sign as she’s “vulnerable”.
The landlord says when she moved in they both agreed on $320.00 per week. The tenant is seeking to have $600.00 returned.
I do not accept this claim. I have sighted the signed tenancy agreement for $320.00. That is the weekly rental amount the parties agreed on.
The claim for rent overpayment is dismissed. Fake products:
The tenant is saying that the landlord forced her to buy her products. The tenant is claiming $330.00 for this. The tenant refused.
This claim is also dismissed. This was not in the tenant’s application and therefore will not be considered. It is also not a claim which would be dealt with by this Tribunal. Bathroom:
The tenant says that the bathroom was not clean when she moved in. The tenant has provided photographic evidence which she claims was taken on 17 April 2023.
The landlord says that premises were clean when the tenant moved in.
This claim is not support by the evidence filed in support by the tenant.
This claim is dismissed. Toilet blinds:
The tenant says that the blinds fell off after one week hurting her arm. The tenant says that the blind fell off 3 times. She says that the hook was not right.
The landlord says that she offered the first time to repair but was told by the tenant that she did not allow her to repair it. The remaining times it fell off she was not advised by the tenant. The landlord says that the blind would only come down if force was used. Damage to tenant’s property:
The tenant says that there was damage to her property (iphone and ipad) and that it was caused by the landlord. She also says that the landlord did not do anything about the damage.
The landlord says that the tenant told her that there were ‘ghosts or spirits’ in her room.
The landlord does not accept this claim. Unlawful entry into room:
The tenant claims that the landlord entered her room and assaulted her. The tenant says that she reported this to the police 17 June 2023. The police dd not take this any further. The landlord was not charged. No evidence was provided in support of this claim.
The landlord says that she does not agree with this. She says that the police turned up to the address and spoke only with the tenant. Storage fee:
The tenant is claiming the amount of $1128.30 being the amount for a storage unit. The tenant says that after one week of living there her belongings were getting damaged and that she had to move her them into a storage unit. This was for the period 27 April to 27 November.
The landlord says that the tenant is not being truthful. She says that the tenant only moved part of her belongings to the premises. The landlord says that she was not responsible for any alleged damage. Threat to kill:
The tenant says that the landlord threatened to kill her. She says that the landlord followed her to her door on 17 June and threatened her on Wee chat. The tenant reported this to the police on the same day.
The landlord says that this all happened in her imagination. She did not do what was alleged. She says that the police did not contact her. Water supply cut off:
The tenant says that the water was cut off on two occasions. She says that the landlord would often come to ‘pick on her’.
The landlord says that the water pressure would often decrease if other people were using it. The landlord also says that tenant would often leave the hot water running for no reason at all. Oven light bulb:
The tenant says that the landlord did not provide a rangehood light bulb. She says that she hurt her hand because she could not see what she was doing. Breach quiet enjoyment:
The tenant says that the landlord was burning the incense outside her room every morning.
The landlord says that she is a Buddhist and therefore burns incense. She says she told the tenant this before she moved in. She also says that she never complained during the tenancy. Analysis:
The tenant has filed a number of claims against the landlord. The vast majority of these claims are either without merit or simply not plausible. The claims are also not supported by any credible evidence.
I have carefully considered the volume of material filed by the tenant in response to the landlord’s claims, and in support of her own application.
As noted, the parties have filed significant material to assist me in determining the various claims, and on important points the parties’ evidence was entirely at odds. On those occasions I have had to determine the dispute based on my assessment of each party/witness’s credibility, and whether I accept their evidence on each point either in whole or in part.
The onus remains on the applicants for each portion of the claim and cross claim. The standard is the balance of probabilities, in other words, is it more likely than not that something happened or did not happen.
On the whole, I found the landlord to be a credible and forthright witness. She was upfront about matters, including matters which did not support her position. Her oral evidence was delivered in a clam and controlled manner consistent with the material that was available to me. The landlord generally remained calm, even in the face of provocative comments from the tenant.
By contrast, I found the tenant to be a less than compelling witness. The tenant had a tendency to speak over me on numerous occasions when she disagreed and used tone, volume and body language to do so. The tenant displayed an attitude of scant regard for the Tribunal process which was reflected in the manner in which she gave evidence and her manner of responding to the landlord’s claims and in advancing her own.
The cross application by the tenant is dismissed. There is no credible evidence in support of the tenant’s claims.
The tenant has not succeeded with her application and therefore is not entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4755190 — Rent arrears at Room 1, Unit/Flat 6, 115 Church Street, Onehunga,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4755190 — Rent arrears at Room 1, Unit/Flat 6, 115 Church Street, Onehunga,

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

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

Frequently asked questions