What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4826040?

The tribunal order states: Jade Gledhill and Shay Gledhill must pay Inspire Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4826040?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,071.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4826040?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4826040?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10131097-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4826040?

The tribunal order states: Jade Gledhill and Shay Gledhill must pay Inspire Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4826040?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,071.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4826040?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4826040?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10131097-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Te Mawae Street, Whanganui East, Whanganui 4500 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4826040 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4826040 — net $1,091.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,071.43	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,091.87
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,091.87

Order

Jade Gledhill and Shay Gledhill must pay Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Pattiaratchi Legacy Trust $1,091.87 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (6429781-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Pattiaratchi Legacy Trust: $1,091.87 Jade Gledhill and Shay Gledhill: $908.13

Reasons

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, partial refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was conducted remotely. Both parties attended the hearing, the tenant represented by Ms Jade Gledhill, who said that Shay Gledhill was supposed to have been removed from the tenancy agreement. Ms Ditchfield, for the landlord, said that Shay Gledhill moved in and out.
I was satisfied that Ms Jade Gledhill could represent the two tenants at the hearing, but did not remove her name from the orders made, as it may be that part of the balance of the bond is owed to Ms Shay Gledhill. They may sort out the balance of the bond between them.
Ms Jade Gledhill accepted that she was responsible for some unpaid rent at the end of the tenancy, but there was a dispute about the amount owing. The tenant accepted she owed rent past 29 August, but said that she could not return the keys before 8 September because of the landlord’s unavailability.
Under section 40(1)(e)(iv) the tenant must return all keys at the end of the tenancy.
The onus is on the tenant to establish that the landlord’s conduct prevented the return of the keys before 8 September 2023. The standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. The tenant must prove that a matter she relies on is more likely than not to be true.

How much is owed for rent?

On 1 August 2023 the tenant gave notice via text. In reply she was told that the notice period is 28 days, which meant the tenancy was due to end on 29 August 2023. The landlord seeks rent to 8 September, being the date the keys were returned. She provided a rent summary showing that rent owing to 8 September 2023 amounted to $1,071.43.
The parties explained that they knew each other outside the tenancy. The arrangements for the end of this tenancy lacked some of the formality that is often seen when a tenancy is handled by a property management company. For example there was no letter from the property manager confirming the last date of the tenancy and the expectations at the end of the tenancy including arrangements for handing over the key.
It was not disputed that on 29 August 2023 the premises were not fully vacated and ready for a final inspection. The landlord provided screenshots of text conversations around this time. On 29 August 2023 the tenant texted saying that she was organising towing of a caravan and she had to empty out a food cupboard and do some vacuuming. No mention was made of returning the key.
In another text which Ms Ditchfield said was received on 1 September 2023, it appeared the tenant was close to being ready for the final inspection. The tenant said that she was dropping some things off at some charity shops and was waiting for “the boss” who had the keys. She asked if 3 or 3.30pm would suit.
The parties were not sure what further communication they had between that and the day the keys were finally returned on 8 September.
Ms Gledhill said that she could not drop keys off at the property manager’s office because there was no-one there. Ms Ditchfield said that there was a receptionist there Monday to Thursday. She explained that there is no drop-box for the keys.
In the texts provided, there is one dated 8 September sent at 10.41am in which Ms Gledhill said that she had called in to the office 4 times and left messages with the “young girl on the desk” and tried ringing. That corroborates Ms Ditchfield’s evidence that there was someone in the office between 1 and 8 September. Ms Gledhill did not say in that text that she had tried to leave the keys at the office or when she had left the messages. In that text she also said that she had just gone to the house to get the last couple of things. Later in the day at 4.04pm Ms Gledhill said, “I’m going to pop to the house quickly to double-check the keys I can’t remember what ones are what.”
Based on the texts, I am not satisfied that the conduct of the property manager prevented Ms Gledhill from returning the correct keys off at any time before 8 September 2023. Even at 4pm that day, Ms Gledhill was not certain that she had the correct keys. She did not produce any evidence that showed that she was trying to arrange a time to drop off the keys before 8 September and that the property manager was not available for that. Accordingly, I find that she is liable for the rent up to 8 September 2023 and order $1,071.43 in rent arrears.
Because Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Pattiaratchi Legacy Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4826040 — net $1,091.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,071.43	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,091.87
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,091.87

Order

Jade Gledhill and Shay Gledhill must pay Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Pattiaratchi Legacy Trust $1,091.87 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (6429781-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Pattiaratchi Legacy Trust: $1,091.87 Jade Gledhill and Shay Gledhill: $908.13

Reasons

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, partial refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was conducted remotely. Both parties attended the hearing, the tenant represented by Ms Jade Gledhill, who said that Shay Gledhill was supposed to have been removed from the tenancy agreement. Ms Ditchfield, for the landlord, said that Shay Gledhill moved in and out.
I was satisfied that Ms Jade Gledhill could represent the two tenants at the hearing, but did not remove her name from the orders made, as it may be that part of the balance of the bond is owed to Ms Shay Gledhill. They may sort out the balance of the bond between them.
Ms Jade Gledhill accepted that she was responsible for some unpaid rent at the end of the tenancy, but there was a dispute about the amount owing. The tenant accepted she owed rent past 29 August, but said that she could not return the keys before 8 September because of the landlord’s unavailability.
Under section 40(1)(e)(iv) the tenant must return all keys at the end of the tenancy.
The onus is on the tenant to establish that the landlord’s conduct prevented the return of the keys before 8 September 2023. The standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. The tenant must prove that a matter she relies on is more likely than not to be true.

How much is owed for rent?

On 1 August 2023 the tenant gave notice via text. In reply she was told that the notice period is 28 days, which meant the tenancy was due to end on 29 August 2023. The landlord seeks rent to 8 September, being the date the keys were returned. She provided a rent summary showing that rent owing to 8 September 2023 amounted to $1,071.43.
The parties explained that they knew each other outside the tenancy. The arrangements for the end of this tenancy lacked some of the formality that is often seen when a tenancy is handled by a property management company. For example there was no letter from the property manager confirming the last date of the tenancy and the expectations at the end of the tenancy including arrangements for handing over the key.
It was not disputed that on 29 August 2023 the premises were not fully vacated and ready for a final inspection. The landlord provided screenshots of text conversations around this time. On 29 August 2023 the tenant texted saying that she was organising towing of a caravan and she had to empty out a food cupboard and do some vacuuming. No mention was made of returning the key.
In another text which Ms Ditchfield said was received on 1 September 2023, it appeared the tenant was close to being ready for the final inspection. The tenant said that she was dropping some things off at some charity shops and was waiting for “the boss” who had the keys. She asked if 3 or 3.30pm would suit.
The parties were not sure what further communication they had between that and the day the keys were finally returned on 8 September.
Ms Gledhill said that she could not drop keys off at the property manager’s office because there was no-one there. Ms Ditchfield said that there was a receptionist there Monday to Thursday. She explained that there is no drop-box for the keys.
In the texts provided, there is one dated 8 September sent at 10.41am in which Ms Gledhill said that she had called in to the office 4 times and left messages with the “young girl on the desk” and tried ringing. That corroborates Ms Ditchfield’s evidence that there was someone in the office between 1 and 8 September. Ms Gledhill did not say in that text that she had tried to leave the keys at the office or when she had left the messages. In that text she also said that she had just gone to the house to get the last couple of things. Later in the day at 4.04pm Ms Gledhill said, “I’m going to pop to the house quickly to double-check the keys I can’t remember what ones are what.”
Based on the texts, I am not satisfied that the conduct of the property manager prevented Ms Gledhill from returning the correct keys off at any time before 8 September 2023. Even at 4pm that day, Ms Gledhill was not certain that she had the correct keys. She did not produce any evidence that showed that she was trying to arrange a time to drop off the keys before 8 September and that the property manager was not available for that. Accordingly, I find that she is liable for the rent up to 8 September 2023 and order $1,071.43 in rent arrears.
Because Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Pattiaratchi Legacy Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4826040 — Rent arrears at 5 Te Mawae Street, Whanganui East, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4826040 — Rent arrears at 5 Te Mawae Street, Whanganui East, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions