What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4839223 about?

The tribunal order states: Tri Sari Rachmadhani must pay Impression Real Estate Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4839223?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4839223?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4839223?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10273525-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4839223 about?

The tribunal order states: Tri Sari Rachmadhani must pay Impression Real Estate Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4839223?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4839223?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4839223?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10273525-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1109, 53 Cook Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4839223 — Unit Titles

Order

Tri Sari Rachmadhani must pay Impression Real Estate Limited As Agent For Raymond Haycock $80.00 immediately, being part-cost of the rubbish invoice.
No other orders are made.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The application was a single issue, a Body Corporate invoice on the owner of the premises for rubbish removal.
The tenant accepted she had left a rubbish bag by, and not in, the designated rubbish skip bin.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: 2232 “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
The Body Rules – Schedule 3 were provided to the tenant as part of the tenancy agreement. It reads, in part:
Elsewhere in the Schedule it advices that the full BC rules are available at the manager’s office.
The BC Manager raised an invoice for $201.25, as a pass through of an invoice of $172.50 with strata admin fees added.
That invoice cited:
No copy of the BC Rules provided contained that reference section. There was no schedule of costs for such tasks. It would be appropriate for a tenant to ne aware of the specific charges that rule breaches or tasks would incur. Other examples of common costs in such a tenancy include needs such swipe card replacement.
In the absence of the full rules being provided, and any cost schedule that might forewarn the tenant of such BC charges, I rely on Schedule Three. That provides for the cost of rubbish removal to be recovered. No set cost is specified so it is expected the costs should reflect the task. 2233

What rubbish was dumped?

The tenant did not dispute that she failed to place rubbish n the designated bin. She claimed it is full and she could not.
The landlord provided a short video clip (screenshot below left) and a photo later taken by the BC admin (below right).
Having reviewed the video several times, I remain uncertain all of the rubbish later photographed is from the tenant as captured on video. If there was further video of a repeat visit, that was not provided. The video does not support the tenant recounting of her experience either. There was no entry into the rubbish room – the bag was thrown in from the door.

What is the tenant liability?

I am satisfied the tenant did not deposit her bag of rubbish in the skip bin as expected. I am not satisfied the amount of rubbish later photographed aligns with the bag captured in the video.
I have some sympathy with the tenant that the cost charged was excessive. Either the bin was full, as the tenant posited but could not evidence, or she failed to take two further steps and drop the bag of rubbish into the skip bin, instead of at the base of it. Regardless, the actual cost recovery for the effort required would be expected to be somewhat less than that invoiced, even allowing for overhead costs.
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case. 2234
I consider the tenant failed to dispose of the bag of rubbish as expected. The possibility of others rubbish being in the photo provided is a reasonable consideration given the video of the actual dumping.
Having considered the evidence and submissions, I award $80.00 to the landlord for the cost of subsequent handling of the bag of rubbish. This balances the failure of the tenant to deposit the bag of rubbish appropriately against what appears to be an excessive invoice for cost recovery. The unsigned Schedule Three does intend to have the party confirm understand that a full copy of the Body Corporate Rules are available to view during office hours at the Management Office. Even if signed, I would think it appropriate for any Body Corporate schedule of costs such as applied in this instance to be more transparent to a tenant at the commencement of the tenancy. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has not been wholly or substantially successful, suppression is not ordered.

Order

Tri Sari Rachmadhani must pay Impression Real Estate Limited As Agent For Raymond Haycock $80.00 immediately, being part-cost of the rubbish invoice.
No other orders are made.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The application was a single issue, a Body Corporate invoice on the owner of the premises for rubbish removal.
The tenant accepted she had left a rubbish bag by, and not in, the designated rubbish skip bin.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: 2232 “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
The Body Rules – Schedule 3 were provided to the tenant as part of the tenancy agreement. It reads, in part:
Elsewhere in the Schedule it advices that the full BC rules are available at the manager’s office.
The BC Manager raised an invoice for $201.25, as a pass through of an invoice of $172.50 with strata admin fees added.
That invoice cited:
No copy of the BC Rules provided contained that reference section. There was no schedule of costs for such tasks. It would be appropriate for a tenant to ne aware of the specific charges that rule breaches or tasks would incur. Other examples of common costs in such a tenancy include needs such swipe card replacement.
In the absence of the full rules being provided, and any cost schedule that might forewarn the tenant of such BC charges, I rely on Schedule Three. That provides for the cost of rubbish removal to be recovered. No set cost is specified so it is expected the costs should reflect the task. 2233

What rubbish was dumped?

The tenant did not dispute that she failed to place rubbish n the designated bin. She claimed it is full and she could not.
The landlord provided a short video clip (screenshot below left) and a photo later taken by the BC admin (below right).
Having reviewed the video several times, I remain uncertain all of the rubbish later photographed is from the tenant as captured on video. If there was further video of a repeat visit, that was not provided. The video does not support the tenant recounting of her experience either. There was no entry into the rubbish room – the bag was thrown in from the door.

What is the tenant liability?

I am satisfied the tenant did not deposit her bag of rubbish in the skip bin as expected. I am not satisfied the amount of rubbish later photographed aligns with the bag captured in the video.
I have some sympathy with the tenant that the cost charged was excessive. Either the bin was full, as the tenant posited but could not evidence, or she failed to take two further steps and drop the bag of rubbish into the skip bin, instead of at the base of it. Regardless, the actual cost recovery for the effort required would be expected to be somewhat less than that invoiced, even allowing for overhead costs.
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case. 2234
I consider the tenant failed to dispose of the bag of rubbish as expected. The possibility of others rubbish being in the photo provided is a reasonable consideration given the video of the actual dumping.
Having considered the evidence and submissions, I award $80.00 to the landlord for the cost of subsequent handling of the bag of rubbish. This balances the failure of the tenant to deposit the bag of rubbish appropriately against what appears to be an excessive invoice for cost recovery. The unsigned Schedule Three does intend to have the party confirm understand that a full copy of the Body Corporate Rules are available to view during office hours at the Management Office. Even if signed, I would think it appropriate for any Body Corporate schedule of costs such as applied in this instance to be more transparent to a tenant at the commencement of the tenancy. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has not been wholly or substantially successful, suppression is not ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4839223 — Unit Titles at Unit/Flat 1109, 53 Cook Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4839223 — Unit Titles at Unit/Flat 1109, 53 Cook Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What rubbish was dumped?

What is the tenant liability?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What rubbish was dumped?

What is the tenant liability?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions