What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4831077 about?

The tribunal order states: Samson Brown and Gale Alma Brown must pay [The tenant/s] $346.71

How much money was awarded in case 4831077?

Rent Overpayment: $346.71 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4831077?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4831077?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10718851-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4831077 about?

The tribunal order states: Samson Brown and Gale Alma Brown must pay [The tenant/s] $346.71

How much money was awarded in case 4831077?

Rent Overpayment: $346.71 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4831077?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4831077?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10718851-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

56 River Road, Masterton, Masterton 5810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4831077 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4831077 — net $346.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent overpayment	$346.71	Rent overpayment
Net award	$346.71
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$346.71

Order

Samson Brown and Gale Alma Brown must pay [The tenant/s] $346.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an applications filed by both the landlord and tenant. Both applications centre around effectively the same thing – does [the tenant] owe the landlord any rent arrears at the end of the tenancy?
Both parties appeared at the hearing in Masterton today.

BACKGROUND

DescriptionTenant Rent overpayment$346.71 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$346.71

I record at this time that this has been a difficult matter to determine, because the ‘management’ of the tenancy changed during the tenancy, and I have not been provided with all of the rent records from the original property manager. What has been provided is patchy between both parties, and the best evidence of what was paid are the records from WINZ.
This is a tenancy of long duration. The tenancy agreement records that the tenancy commenced on 30 March 2016. The landlord at that time was “L J Hooker, Wairarapa Property Management”. The rent was initially $250.00.
The property manager increased the rent from 15 January 2019, taking the rent from $250 to $270 per week. The first payment of the increased amount from the WINZ records occurred on 25 January 2019, so the under payment would have been $20.
The records from WINZ record that on 22 January 2019, WINZ paid the sum of $617.00 by way of a grant for rent arrears. It is not clear to me how those arrears arose to that level.
The rent increased from 28 February 2020 to $380.00, however according to the WINZ payments, the increased rent did not commence until 20 March 2020. That is 21 days, meaning by my calculations the tenant would have been $180.00 behind in her rent.
However, the tenant has provided a confirmation from WINZ that it paid the property manager on 16 March 2020, the sum of $644.00 for rent arrears by way of a special grant.
The rent increased from 18 May 2023 to $500.00 per week, and the WINZ records support that the payments did increase to that level from 19 May 2023.
The management of the tenancy transferred back to the landlord on 23 June 2024
The tenancy ended and the tenant returned possession of the premises to the landlord on Monday 12 February 2024.

LANDLORDS CASE

The landlord’s position is that the tenant owes rent arrears of $1,167.00.

TENANTS CASE

The tenant’s position is simple. That she was two weeks in advance with her rent payments, and further that the property manager made her pay additional sums of money that she was not liable to pay. The tenant refers to the WINZ records in support of her claim.

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.

ANALYSIS

As I have indicated above, this case has been difficult because I have not been provided with the full rent records over the course of the tenancy. But from what I can see, the position that property manager / landlord has taken, is that there were four different periods of arrears arising. I will consider those, and set out my findings: Period 1
The first period is in January 2019.
As noted above, the property manager increased the rent from 15 January 2019, taking the rent from $250 to $270 per week. The first payment of the increased amount from the WINZ records occurred on 25 January 2019, so the underpayment would have been $20.
The records from WINZ record that on 22 January 2019, WINZ paid the sum of $617.00 by way of a grant for rent arrears. It is not clear to me how those arrears arose to that level, certainly it has not been established how the tenant would be liable for more than $20 of arrears.
I find therefore that the tenant has made an overpayment to the sum of $597.00. Period 2
The second period is in February / March 2020.
Again as noted in the background, the rent increased from 28 February 2020 to $380.00, however according to the WINZ payments, the increased rent did not commence until 20 March 2020. That is 21 days, meaning by my calculations the tenant would have been $180.00 behind in her rent.
However, the tenant has provided a confirmation from WINZ that it paid the property manager on 16 March 2020, the sum of $644.00 for rent arrears by way of a special grant.
On the evidence the tenant has overpaid rent at this time to the sum of $464.00 Period 3
The only records I have for the 3 rd and 4 th periods are the landlord’s handwritten rent ledger.
The third period is where the rent records show a missed payment of $500.00 for rent due on 23 June 2023. That was the time the management transferred from the property manager to the landlord. In any event, the WINZ records show that payment was made, so there is neither an overpayment nor underpayment for that week’s rent. Period 4
The 4 th period of contentious payments is at the end of the tenancy. The parties agree that the tenant’s last rent payment was on 19 January 2024.
I agree with the tenant that she paid two weeks rent in advance at the start of the tenancy, which is confirmed in the WINZ records where there was payment for “rent in advance” of $500.00 (the rent at that time was $250 per week).
The tenant’s last rent payment was on 19 January 2024. If the tenant was two weeks in advance with her rent payments, then that means the 19 January 2024 payment would have taken the rent paid until 1 February 2024.
The parties agree that possession was returned to the landlord on 12 February 2024, so the tenant is short 10 days rent (between 2 and 11 February), which equates to $714.29 Conclusion
Taking the above into account, the best I can determine is that the tenant overpaid her rent to the sum of $1,061, and the arrears owned for period 4 is $714.29, meaning the tenant has overpaid her rent to the sum of $346.71

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenant has applied for name suppression, the landlord has not. Because the tenant has been mostly successful in her application, name suppression is ordered to apply for the tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4831077 — net $346.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent overpayment	$346.71	Rent overpayment
Net award	$346.71
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$346.71

Order

Samson Brown and Gale Alma Brown must pay [The tenant/s] $346.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an applications filed by both the landlord and tenant. Both applications centre around effectively the same thing – does [the tenant] owe the landlord any rent arrears at the end of the tenancy?
Both parties appeared at the hearing in Masterton today.

BACKGROUND

DescriptionTenant Rent overpayment$346.71 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$346.71

I record at this time that this has been a difficult matter to determine, because the ‘management’ of the tenancy changed during the tenancy, and I have not been provided with all of the rent records from the original property manager. What has been provided is patchy between both parties, and the best evidence of what was paid are the records from WINZ.
This is a tenancy of long duration. The tenancy agreement records that the tenancy commenced on 30 March 2016. The landlord at that time was “L J Hooker, Wairarapa Property Management”. The rent was initially $250.00.
The property manager increased the rent from 15 January 2019, taking the rent from $250 to $270 per week. The first payment of the increased amount from the WINZ records occurred on 25 January 2019, so the under payment would have been $20.
The records from WINZ record that on 22 January 2019, WINZ paid the sum of $617.00 by way of a grant for rent arrears. It is not clear to me how those arrears arose to that level.
The rent increased from 28 February 2020 to $380.00, however according to the WINZ payments, the increased rent did not commence until 20 March 2020. That is 21 days, meaning by my calculations the tenant would have been $180.00 behind in her rent.
However, the tenant has provided a confirmation from WINZ that it paid the property manager on 16 March 2020, the sum of $644.00 for rent arrears by way of a special grant.
The rent increased from 18 May 2023 to $500.00 per week, and the WINZ records support that the payments did increase to that level from 19 May 2023.
The management of the tenancy transferred back to the landlord on 23 June 2024
The tenancy ended and the tenant returned possession of the premises to the landlord on Monday 12 February 2024.

LANDLORDS CASE

The landlord’s position is that the tenant owes rent arrears of $1,167.00.

TENANTS CASE

The tenant’s position is simple. That she was two weeks in advance with her rent payments, and further that the property manager made her pay additional sums of money that she was not liable to pay. The tenant refers to the WINZ records in support of her claim.

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.

ANALYSIS

As I have indicated above, this case has been difficult because I have not been provided with the full rent records over the course of the tenancy. But from what I can see, the position that property manager / landlord has taken, is that there were four different periods of arrears arising. I will consider those, and set out my findings: Period 1
The first period is in January 2019.
As noted above, the property manager increased the rent from 15 January 2019, taking the rent from $250 to $270 per week. The first payment of the increased amount from the WINZ records occurred on 25 January 2019, so the underpayment would have been $20.
The records from WINZ record that on 22 January 2019, WINZ paid the sum of $617.00 by way of a grant for rent arrears. It is not clear to me how those arrears arose to that level, certainly it has not been established how the tenant would be liable for more than $20 of arrears.
I find therefore that the tenant has made an overpayment to the sum of $597.00. Period 2
The second period is in February / March 2020.
Again as noted in the background, the rent increased from 28 February 2020 to $380.00, however according to the WINZ payments, the increased rent did not commence until 20 March 2020. That is 21 days, meaning by my calculations the tenant would have been $180.00 behind in her rent.
However, the tenant has provided a confirmation from WINZ that it paid the property manager on 16 March 2020, the sum of $644.00 for rent arrears by way of a special grant.
On the evidence the tenant has overpaid rent at this time to the sum of $464.00 Period 3
The only records I have for the 3 rd and 4 th periods are the landlord’s handwritten rent ledger.
The third period is where the rent records show a missed payment of $500.00 for rent due on 23 June 2023. That was the time the management transferred from the property manager to the landlord. In any event, the WINZ records show that payment was made, so there is neither an overpayment nor underpayment for that week’s rent. Period 4
The 4 th period of contentious payments is at the end of the tenancy. The parties agree that the tenant’s last rent payment was on 19 January 2024.
I agree with the tenant that she paid two weeks rent in advance at the start of the tenancy, which is confirmed in the WINZ records where there was payment for “rent in advance” of $500.00 (the rent at that time was $250 per week).
The tenant’s last rent payment was on 19 January 2024. If the tenant was two weeks in advance with her rent payments, then that means the 19 January 2024 payment would have taken the rent paid until 1 February 2024.
The parties agree that possession was returned to the landlord on 12 February 2024, so the tenant is short 10 days rent (between 2 and 11 February), which equates to $714.29 Conclusion
Taking the above into account, the best I can determine is that the tenant overpaid her rent to the sum of $1,061, and the arrears owned for period 4 is $714.29, meaning the tenant has overpaid her rent to the sum of $346.71

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenant has applied for name suppression, the landlord has not. Because the tenant has been mostly successful in her application, name suppression is ordered to apply for the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4831077 — Tenancy dispute at 56 River Road, Masterton, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4831077 — Tenancy dispute at 56 River Road, Masterton, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CASE

TENANTS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CASE

TENANTS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions