What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4802897?

The tribunal order states: Ryan James Wallbank to pay Russell Julian Penrhys-Evans $1,706.15 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4802897?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $685.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4802897?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4802897?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10404959-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4802897?

The tribunal order states: Ryan James Wallbank to pay Russell Julian Penrhys-Evans $1,706.15 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4802897?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $685.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4802897?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4802897?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10404959-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

791 State Highway 25, Waitakaruru, RD 6, Ngatea 3576 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4802897 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4802897 — net $1,706.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 31 January 2023 to 14 January 2024	$685.71	Rent arrears 31 January 2023 to 14 January 2024
Rubbish removal	$1,000.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,706.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,706.15

Order

Ryan James Wallbank to pay Russell Julian Penrhys-Evans $1,706.15 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,706.15 (5554842-002) to Russell Julian Penrhys-Evans immediately. The balance of the bond of $1,693.85 (5554842-002) is to remain at the Bond Centre until release is agreed by the parties or by further order of the Tribunal.

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 04 April 2022 and ended on 14 January 2024, after the tenant gave notice. The landlord’s application was filed on 09 February 2024, and set down for an in person hearing on 30 May 2024. There has been no appearance by the tenant. Ms Evans and Ms Walker have appeared for the landlord. They state that the landlord was due to have returned from overseas for the hearing but has been delayed. They state that the landlord has given them authority to proceed with the matter and that they act as the landlord’s representatives. I have offered to adjourn, but Ms Evans and Ms Walker state the landlrod is keen for the matter to proceed. Ms Evans is related to the landlord. The tenancy agreement records that Ms Walker has, in fact, been the property manager for the tenancy. Ms Walker also states that she assisted prepare the application with the landlord. I am satisfied that they have authority to act and have sufficient knowledge of the matter.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, and missing chattels, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). How much is owed for rent.
On 13 February 2023, the Tribunal sealed a mediated order for addressing rent arrears to 30 January 2023. According to the rent summary produced the tenant then made subsequent payments toward both rent and the debt. The tenant appears to have defaulted on the agreement, after which the tenant gave notice, and the tenancy ended on 14 January 2024.
On 24 January 2024, the landlord requested a means assessment inquiry, which the tenant did not attend. The landlord now seeks that any award made in this matter be added to the mediated order. Additionally, the landlord seeks the filing fee associated with the mediated order, and the fee charged by the Registry to arrange the means inquiry.
The rent summary shows all of the payments made from the beginning of the tenancy on 04 April 2022 to its end on 14 January 2024, including payments made toward the agreed debt from 31 January 2023 onwards.
Initially, I considered merging the two orders. However, the Court Registrar has now advised that following the tenant’s failure to appear at the means assessment, enforcement action has been taken in relation to the mediated agreement. Therefore, regrettably, I am unable to merge or join the today’s order with the mediated order sealed in February 2023.
The Tribunal can only address rent arrears for the period 31 January 2023 to 14 January 2024. Determining the rent due for that period and the amount paid, which does not include payments made toward the debt, the rent arrears are $685.71.
Regarding the $20.44 filing fee associated with the mediated order, this was not part of the initial agreement.
Although I am not in a position to give the landlord advice, I suggest that they speak with the Registry.

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

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the property in a reasonable clean and tidy condition, including the grounds, remove all rubbish, and return two garage remote control units. The landlord seeks cleaning costs of $1,400.00, $1,899.00 for rubbish removal and grounds maintenance, and $284.05 to replace the two garage remotes.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and return all keys and security devices. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
What is reasonably clean and tidy is not defined in the Act. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, including inspection reports and photographs.
In this case, the photographs showing the inside of the property at the end of the tenancy are limited and not of particularly good quality. There are none of the bathroom, toilet, or, apart from the top of the kitchen cabinets, the kitchen, stove etc. There is insufficient evidence to conduct an objective assessment, and the claim for cleaning is declined.
The property is in a rural setting and has several outbuildings including a large barn, double garage, and single garage. The landlord has produced photographs showing inside the outbuildings, around the property, and one which shows and small area of raised garden. The photographs show that the tenant has left items behind which include household appliances, 44-gallon drum, road cones, tarpaulins, child’s car seat, various tools, household furniture, children’s playhouse, toys, push bike, drum kit, and significant amount of household rubbish. The raised garden shown in one photograph appears to be overgrown.
I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to remove all rubbish. However, Ms Walker states that after the photographs were taken the tenant was invited to return and remove items, which she understood the tenant did. The landlord then engaged a local contractor to remove the remaining rubbish and tidy up the grounds. There is limited evidence concerning the grounds. The pre tenancy agreement does not record the state of the grounds at the commencement of the tenancy. Ms Evans states that the amount of the claim attributable to the grounds would have been minimal in any event.
In awarding compensation, the Tribunal must assess whether it is reasonable. In doing so, the Tribunal should consider the amount of rubbish actually removed and was remained. In this case, this is challenging as the tenant has returned and collected items after the photographs were taken. Ms Evans and Ms Walker estimate that, taking into account the size of the contractor’s trailer and the milage claim, they must have made around three trips to the nearby transfer station.
Based on the evidence and after hearing from Ms Evans and Ms Walker, I award the landlord $1,000.00 for rubbish removal.
Regarding the claim for the missing garage remotes, there is no record in the tenancy agreement or pre tenancy checklist of the keys or remotes supplied. Neither Ms Evans nor Ms Walker provided keys or remotes to the tenant. There is insufficient evidence, and the claim is dismissed. Costs
Because Russell Julian Penrhys-Evans substantially succeeded with the claim I reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Although entitled to do so the landlord does not seek name suppression and no orders are made.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4802897 — net $1,706.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 31 January 2023 to 14 January 2024	$685.71	Rent arrears 31 January 2023 to 14 January 2024
Rubbish removal	$1,000.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,706.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,706.15

Order

Ryan James Wallbank to pay Russell Julian Penrhys-Evans $1,706.15 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,706.15 (5554842-002) to Russell Julian Penrhys-Evans immediately. The balance of the bond of $1,693.85 (5554842-002) is to remain at the Bond Centre until release is agreed by the parties or by further order of the Tribunal.

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 04 April 2022 and ended on 14 January 2024, after the tenant gave notice. The landlord’s application was filed on 09 February 2024, and set down for an in person hearing on 30 May 2024. There has been no appearance by the tenant. Ms Evans and Ms Walker have appeared for the landlord. They state that the landlord was due to have returned from overseas for the hearing but has been delayed. They state that the landlord has given them authority to proceed with the matter and that they act as the landlord’s representatives. I have offered to adjourn, but Ms Evans and Ms Walker state the landlrod is keen for the matter to proceed. Ms Evans is related to the landlord. The tenancy agreement records that Ms Walker has, in fact, been the property manager for the tenancy. Ms Walker also states that she assisted prepare the application with the landlord. I am satisfied that they have authority to act and have sufficient knowledge of the matter.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, and missing chattels, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). How much is owed for rent.
On 13 February 2023, the Tribunal sealed a mediated order for addressing rent arrears to 30 January 2023. According to the rent summary produced the tenant then made subsequent payments toward both rent and the debt. The tenant appears to have defaulted on the agreement, after which the tenant gave notice, and the tenancy ended on 14 January 2024.
On 24 January 2024, the landlord requested a means assessment inquiry, which the tenant did not attend. The landlord now seeks that any award made in this matter be added to the mediated order. Additionally, the landlord seeks the filing fee associated with the mediated order, and the fee charged by the Registry to arrange the means inquiry.
The rent summary shows all of the payments made from the beginning of the tenancy on 04 April 2022 to its end on 14 January 2024, including payments made toward the agreed debt from 31 January 2023 onwards.
Initially, I considered merging the two orders. However, the Court Registrar has now advised that following the tenant’s failure to appear at the means assessment, enforcement action has been taken in relation to the mediated agreement. Therefore, regrettably, I am unable to merge or join the today’s order with the mediated order sealed in February 2023.
The Tribunal can only address rent arrears for the period 31 January 2023 to 14 January 2024. Determining the rent due for that period and the amount paid, which does not include payments made toward the debt, the rent arrears are $685.71.
Regarding the $20.44 filing fee associated with the mediated order, this was not part of the initial agreement.
Although I am not in a position to give the landlord advice, I suggest that they speak with the Registry.

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

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the property in a reasonable clean and tidy condition, including the grounds, remove all rubbish, and return two garage remote control units. The landlord seeks cleaning costs of $1,400.00, $1,899.00 for rubbish removal and grounds maintenance, and $284.05 to replace the two garage remotes.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and return all keys and security devices. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
What is reasonably clean and tidy is not defined in the Act. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, including inspection reports and photographs.
In this case, the photographs showing the inside of the property at the end of the tenancy are limited and not of particularly good quality. There are none of the bathroom, toilet, or, apart from the top of the kitchen cabinets, the kitchen, stove etc. There is insufficient evidence to conduct an objective assessment, and the claim for cleaning is declined.
The property is in a rural setting and has several outbuildings including a large barn, double garage, and single garage. The landlord has produced photographs showing inside the outbuildings, around the property, and one which shows and small area of raised garden. The photographs show that the tenant has left items behind which include household appliances, 44-gallon drum, road cones, tarpaulins, child’s car seat, various tools, household furniture, children’s playhouse, toys, push bike, drum kit, and significant amount of household rubbish. The raised garden shown in one photograph appears to be overgrown.
I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to remove all rubbish. However, Ms Walker states that after the photographs were taken the tenant was invited to return and remove items, which she understood the tenant did. The landlord then engaged a local contractor to remove the remaining rubbish and tidy up the grounds. There is limited evidence concerning the grounds. The pre tenancy agreement does not record the state of the grounds at the commencement of the tenancy. Ms Evans states that the amount of the claim attributable to the grounds would have been minimal in any event.
In awarding compensation, the Tribunal must assess whether it is reasonable. In doing so, the Tribunal should consider the amount of rubbish actually removed and was remained. In this case, this is challenging as the tenant has returned and collected items after the photographs were taken. Ms Evans and Ms Walker estimate that, taking into account the size of the contractor’s trailer and the milage claim, they must have made around three trips to the nearby transfer station.
Based on the evidence and after hearing from Ms Evans and Ms Walker, I award the landlord $1,000.00 for rubbish removal.
Regarding the claim for the missing garage remotes, there is no record in the tenancy agreement or pre tenancy checklist of the keys or remotes supplied. Neither Ms Evans nor Ms Walker provided keys or remotes to the tenant. There is insufficient evidence, and the claim is dismissed. Costs
Because Russell Julian Penrhys-Evans substantially succeeded with the claim I reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Although entitled to do so the landlord does not seek name suppression and no orders are made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4802897 — Rent arrears at 791 State Highway 25, Waitakaruru, RD 6, Ngatea 3576

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4802897 — Rent arrears at 791 State Highway 25, Waitakaruru, RD 6, Ngatea 3576

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions