What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4869821 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must each pay Jason Goldney Rees & Tompkins Wake Trustees

How much money was awarded in case 4869821?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,078.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4869821?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4869821?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10916069-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4869821 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must each pay Jason Goldney Rees & Tompkins Wake Trustees

How much money was awarded in case 4869821?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,078.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4869821?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4869821?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10916069-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4869821 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4869821. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 09 June 2024	$4,078.00	Rent arrears to 09 June 2024
Repairs to walls and door	$100.00	Repairs to walls and door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Mrs Rees and Mr Jason Rees appeared for the landlord. [Tenant 1] appeared and was supported by [The tenant's support person], who also gave evidence. Shortly before the hearing commenced, [Tenant 2] informed the Registry that he would not be attending.

At a telephone hearing on 04 June 2024, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy effective 10 June 2024. The other claims where adjourned for a face-to-face hearing before me.

The landlord was given leave to amend their claim, which they did on 24 June 2024. The tenant was given the opportunity to file a counter claim but did not so.

The landlord’s claims are for rent arrears, that the tenant is responsible for damage to bedroom walls, a door, damage under the kitchen sink, and missing or damaged curtains. Claims that the tenant failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition, changed the locks without consent, and failed to remove belongings within an agreed frame have been withdrawn.

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”). Rent arrears.

This was a joint tenancy commencing on 30 August 2021. It appears that domestic issues arose between the tenants, leading to one moving out earlier this year. Although a variation of the tenancy agreement was discussed, none was completed. Therefore, both tenants remain jointly and severally liable for any debts arising out the tenancy. The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 09 June 2024. The landlord seeks an order that each joint tenant be liable for their half of any debt.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.

The property consists of three bedrooms, bathroom, toilet, kitchen, lounge, and dining room. There were no curtains in the kitchen, toilet, or bathroom. The landlord claims during the tenancy they discovered the tenant had removed curtains from the three bedrooms, lounge, and dining room, replacing them with mismatched curtains, and had stored those removed in a cupboard. At the end of the tenancy the landlord discovered the curtains were damaged. The landlord argues that had they been notified earlier the curtains could have been repaired or cleaned.

Due to Covid 19 restrictions, no pre tenancy inspection was conducted by the landlord. Immediately before the commencement of the tenancy the property had been occupied by family members of the landlord including teenagers and children.

The pre tenancy checklist was completed by the tenant only on 30 August 2024. The landlord accepted the checklist and signed it on 27 February 2022. The checklist indicates that there were no curtains in the dining room and one of the bedrooms. The curtains in the lounge and two other bedrooms are recorded as being in poor condition. The tenant states that the previous occupants had kept animals inside, that the property had a strong odour, and the curtains were ripped and had holes. Shortly after the commencement of the tenancy, the tenant replaced the curtains with their own. During an inspection shortly afterward, they advised the landlord that they had replaced the curtains, and that the old ones were in stored in a cupboard.

The landlord acknowledges they were informed about the removal of the curtains but dispute the timing, claiming that it was not mentioned in the first inspection. The landlord states although they knew the curtains were being stored in a cupboard, they did not inspect them until the end of the tenancy. When they did so they noted the curtains were damp and mouldy and had stuck together. Analysis

The landlord states the curtains were 5 or 6 years old at the commencement of the tenancy. According to the checklist they were in a poor condition. There are no photographs produced by the landlord showing the curtains at the commencement nor in their damaged state at the end. I have some doubt that the landlord was fully aware of the true condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. While the landlord knew that the curtains had been removed and stored, they chose not to inspect to them until the end of the tenancy. I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable for the damaged curtains The claim for curtain replacement is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for minor damage to walls and doors, and under the kitchen sink.

To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.

“Fair wear and tear” are generally described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).

When awarding compensation, the Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation and betterment, the Tribunal into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their expected lifespan. Damage

The landlord has produced close up photographs of damage to walls in the bedrooms and a door to the second bedroom, which they claim was caused during the tenancy. The tenant admits liability for some damage but denies responsibility for most stating that it was present at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant states that there was pre-existing damage in each of the bedrooms which they recorded in the checklist simply as “marks,” which the tenant says also included holes, scuffs, and scrapes.

The landlord has produced a photograph showing a 1 – 1.5 cm round hole in the wall between the first and second bedroom. Initially the tenant denied responsibility for this damage but later conceded that it had been made by internet cable installers.

There are photographs of the second bedroom showing stickers on the wall that have been traced around in black marker. The landlord states that removing the stickers caused damage to the wall and that the black pen cannot be removed. The tenant states that the stickers were already present at the commencement of the tenancy and noted in the checklist under “marks.”

The landlord has produced a photograph showing the outside of the door to bedroom two, which has the words “VOT ENTER” written in black marker. The landlord states that during an inspection around July 2024, although they were unable to enter bedroom two or three, that they did not observe the writing on the outside of the door. The tenant was unable to provide an explanation for the writing.

The landlord has produced close up photographs of the walls in bedroom three, showing a number of holes with rawlplugs inserted, small holes consistent with screws, and screws. The configuration of some of the rawlplugs suggest that shelving or brackets were attached to walls. The tenant accepts responsibility for one set of holes with rawlplugs used to install shelves but denies liability for the other damage, claiming it was already present. The tenant states that the previous occupant had a wall mounted television and had decorated the room with fairy lights which had been slung over screws. In the pre tenancy checklist the tenant recorded the condition of the walls as “old condition.”

The landlord is claiming the cost of materials only and has produced invoices for $506.30. Analysis

As previously stated, I have some doubt that the landlord was fully aware of the property’s true condition at the commencement of the tenancy. Although subsequent inspections were conducted, the landlord was unable to access the bedrooms.

The onus is on the landlord to establish that more likely than not the damage has occurred during the tenancy and that is more than fair wear and tear. To determine that damage occurred during the tenancy the Tribunal must be in a position to make an accurate before and after comparison.

Allowing the tenant to self-report property’s condition without the landlord confirming the facts for themselves poses a risk that the tenant may later “clarify” what they recorded.

After hearing from both parties and considering the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for the holes in bedroom one/ two caused by the internet cables, the writing on the door of bedroom two, and the holes and rawlplugs used to install the shelf on one wall. However, I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable for the other damage.

Regarding the claim for water damage under the kitchen sink, there is insufficient evidence to make an objective assessment, and the claim is dismissed.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. I award the landlord $50.00 for the repair of the small holes in bedroom one/two, $25.00 to paint the door to bedroom two, and $25.00 to repair the damage to the wall in bedroom three. Costs

Because Jason Goldney Rees & Tompkins Wake Trustees Limited As Trustees Of The Ma Famille Trust has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.

Both parties seek name suppression.

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.

Having reached a decision, the tenant has been substantially successful defending the claims made against them and is therefore granted name suppression. The landlord, while partly successful, cannot be considered substantially successful, and on that basis, there are no grounds to suppress their name.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4869821. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 09 June 2024	$4,078.00	Rent arrears to 09 June 2024
Repairs to walls and door	$100.00	Repairs to walls and door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

At a telephone hearing on 04 June 2024, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy effective 10 June 2024. The other claims where adjourned for a face-to-face hearing before me.

The landlord was given leave to amend their claim, which they did on 24 June 2024. The tenant was given the opportunity to file a counter claim but did not so.

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for minor damage to walls and doors, and under the kitchen sink.

The landlord is claiming the cost of materials only and has produced invoices for $506.30. Analysis

Allowing the tenant to self-report property’s condition without the landlord confirming the facts for themselves poses a risk that the tenant may later “clarify” what they recorded.

Regarding the claim for water damage under the kitchen sink, there is insufficient evidence to make an objective assessment, and the claim is dismissed.

Because Jason Goldney Rees & Tompkins Wake Trustees Limited As Trustees Of The Ma Famille Trust has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.

Both parties seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4869821 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4869821 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions