What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4800718?

The tribunal order states: Martine Mary Frances Genet must pay Lee Management Limited T/A Pillows

How much money was awarded in case 4800718?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4800718?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Harassment, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4800718?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10240458-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4800718?

The tribunal order states: Martine Mary Frances Genet must pay Lee Management Limited T/A Pillows

How much money was awarded in case 4800718?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4800718?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Harassment, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4800718?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10240458-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 12, 412 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa, Orewa Tenancy Tribunal Case 4800718 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Room 12, 412 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa, Orewa Tenancy Tribunal Case 4800718 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4800718. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Order

Martine Mary Frances Genet must pay Lee Management Limited T/A Pillows Travellers Lodge Orewa $64.29 immediately from the bond, being rent arrears at the end of the tenancy.
The Bond Centre is to pay a portion of the bond of $64.29 (6510785-011) to Lee Management Limited T/A Pillows Travellers Lodge Orewa immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the remaining bond of $1,735.71 (6510785-011) to Martine Mary Frances Genet immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the tenant and landlord.
Both parties appeared at the hearing today.
The parties entered into a tenancy agreement on 19 December 2023. I understand the premises were motel premises, but the premises are also used for boarding house purposes. A boarding house is defined in the RTA as being premises used by 6 or more tenants, and where the occupancy is more than 28 days. From what I have seen in the file and heard from the parties, the premises appear to be a boarding house. That means the boarding house requirements in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) will apply.
The evidence is that during the tenancy, the tenant had an issue where the premises were soiled. That has resulted in a number of claims from the landlord.
Subsequently, the landlord gave the tenant 40 days notice to end the tenancy, but then the tenant gave the landlord 2 days notice.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [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.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Carpet replacement

The landlord’s position is that the tenant should pay $880 for carpet replacement on the basis of soiling of the carpet from the tenant. The landlord has not had the carpet replaced.
As I advised at the hearing, this claim is dismissed. The landlord has only received the quotation for the replacement of the carpet, the Tribunal is not willing to order a replacement cost for items like carpet based only on a quote. Compensation is intended to redress for a loss incurred by the party, and at this point of time, the landlord has not occurred any loss.
As I also noted to the landlord, there is no evidence that the landlord has had the carpets commercially cleaned. I noted that a reasonable landlord would have the carpet commercially cleaned before pursuing the tenant for carpet replacement costs as the landlord has done here.
However, this claim is dismissed on the basis that no loss has been incurred by the landlord, in theory, should the landlord incur a loss at a future time in relation to the carpet, then a new application could be filed with the Tribunal at that time. Bedding and mattress
The landlord states that the tenant has soiled the bedding. The landlord brought the bedding to the hearing, and the marks were shown to the Tribunal.
The tenant states that she had laundered the bedding, and cleaned the marks off the mattress. The tenant disputes that the linen the landlord produced at the hearing was the items of bedding that she was using.
As I also advised the landlord at the hearing, this claim has not been established. If I were to accept that the tenant had caused some staining on the bedding from soiling, I am also entirely satisfied that the tenant had that bedding laundered as a reasonable tenant would have done. It may well be that there was some staining at the end of that laundry process, but I would never the less conclude that the tenant had done her best to clean the marks off the bedding.
If I were to view the staining as being damage, I find the tenant is not liable for the damage because I am not persuaded that the staining would arise from any careless action on the part of the tenant, and I am convinced the tenant did not intentionally set about to stain the landlord’s bedding.
When a landlord provides bedding as part of a Tenancy, when marks are left on the bedding, that was not careless or intentional damage, I would conclude that the marks are fair wear and tear. Rent arrears
The landlord states that the tenant paid rent until 9 February 2024, but seeks rent arrears until 16 February 2024, the date the landlord’s 40-day termination notice expired.
The tenant states that she was not sure when the tenancy came to an end, because there was no tenancy agreement. The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to give the required 90-day notice.
I agree with the landlord that the notice the landlord gave her the tenancy expiring on 16 February 2024. However, there is no reason in law why a tenant could not also give notice ending the tenancy earlier herself. Section 66V of the RTA sets out the notice required of a tenant as follows: 66V When tenant may terminate tenancy (1) A tenant under a boarding house tenancy may terminate the tenancy by giving at least 48 hours’ notice to the landlord. (2) A tenant need not give notice in writing.
In this case, the tenant showed a video where she was arguing with the landlord, and told the landlord that she was leaving the following day. As set out above, the tenant only needs to give 48 hours notice, and given the tenant had paid rent until 9 February, I find she is liable for one day of further rental therefore I order the tenant to pay $64.29 from the bond for that final day.

TENANTS CLAIM

No tenancy agreement

The tenant states that there was no tenancy agreement provided.
However as I noted at the hearing, the landlord has provided a tenancy agreement, which was probably incorrectly titled as an “open rent agreement”. This document is in writing and signed by the landlord, and would comprise a tenancy agreement. This claim is therefore not established. It may be an inadequate agreement, but it is a tenancy agreement no less. Harassment
The tenant states that the landlord has harassed the tenant. At the hearing, the tenant showed me various videos in support of this claim. Those videos unquestionably show the tenant and landlord arguing, and that occurred either in her boarding room or elsewhere such as the landlord’s office. As I advised the parties at the hearing, certainly the video confirms that the tenant and landlord had strong disagreements, and they were arguing over various matters, but that in itself is not harassment.
In my view the landlord appears to have genuine beliefs about what they were arguing about, he did not appear to be arguing with the tenant for the sake of it, or intending to upset her at all. Otherwise, the tenant has not provided any evidence proving harassment on the part of the landlord, meaning this claim must be dismissed. Failure to give 90 days notice
The final claim from the tenant, was that the landlord failed to give 90 days notice to end the tenancy.
Section 66U of the RTA set out the requirements for a landlord of a boarding house tenancy, when terminating the tenant’s tenancy. That provision sets out various minimum timeframes for notice, but the maximum notice that a boarding house landlord needs to give to end a tenancy is 28 days. In this case I accept that the notice given by the landlord was much more than 28 days, meaning there is no breach on the part of the landlord’s termination notice obligations.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case both parties have applied for name suppression, but because neither party has been wholly or substantially successful, name suppression is declined.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4800718. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Order

Martine Mary Frances Genet must pay Lee Management Limited T/A Pillows Travellers Lodge Orewa $64.29 immediately from the bond, being rent arrears at the end of the tenancy.
The Bond Centre is to pay a portion of the bond of $64.29 (6510785-011) to Lee Management Limited T/A Pillows Travellers Lodge Orewa immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the remaining bond of $1,735.71 (6510785-011) to Martine Mary Frances Genet immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the tenant and landlord.
Both parties appeared at the hearing today.
The parties entered into a tenancy agreement on 19 December 2023. I understand the premises were motel premises, but the premises are also used for boarding house purposes. A boarding house is defined in the RTA as being premises used by 6 or more tenants, and where the occupancy is more than 28 days. From what I have seen in the file and heard from the parties, the premises appear to be a boarding house. That means the boarding house requirements in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) will apply.
The evidence is that during the tenancy, the tenant had an issue where the premises were soiled. That has resulted in a number of claims from the landlord.
Subsequently, the landlord gave the tenant 40 days notice to end the tenancy, but then the tenant gave the landlord 2 days notice.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [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.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Carpet replacement

The landlord’s position is that the tenant should pay $880 for carpet replacement on the basis of soiling of the carpet from the tenant. The landlord has not had the carpet replaced.
As I advised at the hearing, this claim is dismissed. The landlord has only received the quotation for the replacement of the carpet, the Tribunal is not willing to order a replacement cost for items like carpet based only on a quote. Compensation is intended to redress for a loss incurred by the party, and at this point of time, the landlord has not occurred any loss.
As I also noted to the landlord, there is no evidence that the landlord has had the carpets commercially cleaned. I noted that a reasonable landlord would have the carpet commercially cleaned before pursuing the tenant for carpet replacement costs as the landlord has done here.
However, this claim is dismissed on the basis that no loss has been incurred by the landlord, in theory, should the landlord incur a loss at a future time in relation to the carpet, then a new application could be filed with the Tribunal at that time. Bedding and mattress
The landlord states that the tenant has soiled the bedding. The landlord brought the bedding to the hearing, and the marks were shown to the Tribunal.
The tenant states that she had laundered the bedding, and cleaned the marks off the mattress. The tenant disputes that the linen the landlord produced at the hearing was the items of bedding that she was using.
As I also advised the landlord at the hearing, this claim has not been established. If I were to accept that the tenant had caused some staining on the bedding from soiling, I am also entirely satisfied that the tenant had that bedding laundered as a reasonable tenant would have done. It may well be that there was some staining at the end of that laundry process, but I would never the less conclude that the tenant had done her best to clean the marks off the bedding.
If I were to view the staining as being damage, I find the tenant is not liable for the damage because I am not persuaded that the staining would arise from any careless action on the part of the tenant, and I am convinced the tenant did not intentionally set about to stain the landlord’s bedding.
When a landlord provides bedding as part of a Tenancy, when marks are left on the bedding, that was not careless or intentional damage, I would conclude that the marks are fair wear and tear. Rent arrears
The landlord states that the tenant paid rent until 9 February 2024, but seeks rent arrears until 16 February 2024, the date the landlord’s 40-day termination notice expired.
The tenant states that she was not sure when the tenancy came to an end, because there was no tenancy agreement. The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to give the required 90-day notice.
I agree with the landlord that the notice the landlord gave her the tenancy expiring on 16 February 2024. However, there is no reason in law why a tenant could not also give notice ending the tenancy earlier herself. Section 66V of the RTA sets out the notice required of a tenant as follows: 66V When tenant may terminate tenancy (1) A tenant under a boarding house tenancy may terminate the tenancy by giving at least 48 hours’ notice to the landlord. (2) A tenant need not give notice in writing.
In this case, the tenant showed a video where she was arguing with the landlord, and told the landlord that she was leaving the following day. As set out above, the tenant only needs to give 48 hours notice, and given the tenant had paid rent until 9 February, I find she is liable for one day of further rental therefore I order the tenant to pay $64.29 from the bond for that final day.

TENANTS CLAIM

No tenancy agreement

The tenant states that there was no tenancy agreement provided.
However as I noted at the hearing, the landlord has provided a tenancy agreement, which was probably incorrectly titled as an “open rent agreement”. This document is in writing and signed by the landlord, and would comprise a tenancy agreement. This claim is therefore not established. It may be an inadequate agreement, but it is a tenancy agreement no less. Harassment
The tenant states that the landlord has harassed the tenant. At the hearing, the tenant showed me various videos in support of this claim. Those videos unquestionably show the tenant and landlord arguing, and that occurred either in her boarding room or elsewhere such as the landlord’s office. As I advised the parties at the hearing, certainly the video confirms that the tenant and landlord had strong disagreements, and they were arguing over various matters, but that in itself is not harassment.
In my view the landlord appears to have genuine beliefs about what they were arguing about, he did not appear to be arguing with the tenant for the sake of it, or intending to upset her at all. Otherwise, the tenant has not provided any evidence proving harassment on the part of the landlord, meaning this claim must be dismissed. Failure to give 90 days notice
The final claim from the tenant, was that the landlord failed to give 90 days notice to end the tenancy.
Section 66U of the RTA set out the requirements for a landlord of a boarding house tenancy, when terminating the tenant’s tenancy. That provision sets out various minimum timeframes for notice, but the maximum notice that a boarding house landlord needs to give to end a tenancy is 28 days. In this case I accept that the notice given by the landlord was much more than 28 days, meaning there is no breach on the part of the landlord’s termination notice obligations.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case both parties have applied for name suppression, but because neither party has been wholly or substantially successful, name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4800718 — Rent arrears at Room 12, 412 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa, Orewa

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4800718 — Rent arrears at Room 12, 412 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa, Orewa

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIM

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIM

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions