What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4878195 about?

The tribunal order states: Wiremu Raka Douglas Uren must pay Mahendran Jaganathan $422.00

How much money was awarded in case 4878195?

Electricity: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4878195?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4878195?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10798499-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4878195 about?

The tribunal order states: Wiremu Raka Douglas Uren must pay Mahendran Jaganathan $422.00

How much money was awarded in case 4878195?

Electricity: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4878195?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4878195?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10798499-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Wellington Street, Phillipstown, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4878195 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4878195 — net $422.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electricity	$322.00	Electricity
Rubbish removal	$100.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$422.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$422.00

Order

Wiremu Raka Douglas Uren must pay Mahendran Jaganathan $422.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Electricity$322.00 Rubbish removal$100.00 Total award$422.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$422.00
Except as expressly awarded above, the landlord’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Uren and Mr Jaganathan attended the hearing.
Mr Uren was represented by Counsel. He was entitled to representation because the claims were over $6,000. 1 1 At the start of the hearing, I asked to Mr Jaganathan whether he also wanted to have representation. See s93(4) RTA. He asked whether we could have the hearing and then decide later if he had needed representation. I advised that he had to make a decision before the hearing started and he elected to proceed with the hearing.
The Tribunal has made previous orders in respect of Mr Uren’s tenancy, including in relation to jurisdiction. The landlord rented out rooms within a dwelling, but it was not a boarding house.
The landlord has now applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
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. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations. They must also prove the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. 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: “...[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.” (emphasis added)
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Claims Against Mr Perrow
Mr Perrow was named as a respondent party in the application. Mr Perrow is Mr Uren’s brother. It is common ground between Mr Uren and Mr Jaganathan that Mr Perrow lived at the property.
It was not clear from the application which claims were against Mr Uren, which were against Mr Perrow and which were against both.
There was no evidence of any agreement between Mr Jaganathan and Mr Perrow. Mr Perrow did not attend the hearing and Mr Jaganathan did not present evidence in relation to any claims against Mr Perrow at the hearing.
The claims against Mr Perrow are dismissed.

How much is owed for power?

A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises or to their use of the facilities (see s 39(3) RTA). Therefore, tenants are only liable for the electricity, gas, telephone and internet they use, and for water charges based on consumption (s 39(4) RTA). They are not liable for fixed water charges.
In this case, it was agreed that Mr Uren would pay for power on a pro-rata basis depending on the number of people living at the property. The landlord calculated that the power owed was $349.71. However, the landlord did not provide copies of power bills for the entire period.
Having regard to the limited invoices provided and s85 of the RTA, I order Mr Uren to pay electricity charges in the sum of $322.

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.
The landlord also claims tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord has claimed for cleaning common areas and the room occupied by Uren. Again, there was minimal corroborative evidence. The landlord claimed for its own time, without providing evidence of the time spent and appeared to apply different hourly rates for different tasks, without any rationale.
Mr Uren accepted that there was some rubbish left in his room. I award $100 for disposal of those items, based on similar awards by the Tribunal for similar volumes of rubbish.
The landlord has failed to prove the rest of its claims for cleaning or rubbish removal. The claims are dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord made multiple claims for damaged, including sub-floor repairs for water damage, garden/lawn repairs, lock & door repairs.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises 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 RTA.
The landlord did not establish that damage occurred during the tenancy or, if it did, that Mr Uren was responsible for the damage. The landlord also did not prove any cost incurred or “out of pocket” expenses.
For example, in relation to the leak repair, the landlord claimed that $30,000 worth of damage had occurred between November (when Mr Uren should have advised that the there was a leak in the bathroom) and February (when a plumber investigated). The landlord sought $8,500 on the basis that he thought that seemed reasonable. He did not establish that Mr Uren knew of the leak. He did not provided evidence of the extent of the damage and how or when it was caused. He did not provide any evidence of the repair costs.
The evidence was similarly lacking in relation to the other claims. In relation to the lawns, the tenant provided a photograph from shortly before the hearing, which negates the landlord claim that the lawn needs to be replaced.
The landlord has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that Mr Uren breached his obligations as a tenant, or if he did, that the landlord has suffered the loss claimed because of any breach.
Except as expressly awarded the landlord claims are dismissed. As the landlord was substantially unsuccessful, I have not awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4878195 — net $422.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electricity	$322.00	Electricity
Rubbish removal	$100.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$422.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$422.00

Order

Wiremu Raka Douglas Uren must pay Mahendran Jaganathan $422.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Electricity$322.00 Rubbish removal$100.00 Total award$422.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$422.00
Except as expressly awarded above, the landlord’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Uren and Mr Jaganathan attended the hearing.
Mr Uren was represented by Counsel. He was entitled to representation because the claims were over $6,000. 1 1 At the start of the hearing, I asked to Mr Jaganathan whether he also wanted to have representation. See s93(4) RTA. He asked whether we could have the hearing and then decide later if he had needed representation. I advised that he had to make a decision before the hearing started and he elected to proceed with the hearing.
The Tribunal has made previous orders in respect of Mr Uren’s tenancy, including in relation to jurisdiction. The landlord rented out rooms within a dwelling, but it was not a boarding house.
The landlord has now applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
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. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations. They must also prove the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. 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: “...[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.” (emphasis added)
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Claims Against Mr Perrow
Mr Perrow was named as a respondent party in the application. Mr Perrow is Mr Uren’s brother. It is common ground between Mr Uren and Mr Jaganathan that Mr Perrow lived at the property.
It was not clear from the application which claims were against Mr Uren, which were against Mr Perrow and which were against both.
There was no evidence of any agreement between Mr Jaganathan and Mr Perrow. Mr Perrow did not attend the hearing and Mr Jaganathan did not present evidence in relation to any claims against Mr Perrow at the hearing.
The claims against Mr Perrow are dismissed.

How much is owed for power?

A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises or to their use of the facilities (see s 39(3) RTA). Therefore, tenants are only liable for the electricity, gas, telephone and internet they use, and for water charges based on consumption (s 39(4) RTA). They are not liable for fixed water charges.
In this case, it was agreed that Mr Uren would pay for power on a pro-rata basis depending on the number of people living at the property. The landlord calculated that the power owed was $349.71. However, the landlord did not provide copies of power bills for the entire period.
Having regard to the limited invoices provided and s85 of the RTA, I order Mr Uren to pay electricity charges in the sum of $322.

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.
The landlord also claims tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord has claimed for cleaning common areas and the room occupied by Uren. Again, there was minimal corroborative evidence. The landlord claimed for its own time, without providing evidence of the time spent and appeared to apply different hourly rates for different tasks, without any rationale.
Mr Uren accepted that there was some rubbish left in his room. I award $100 for disposal of those items, based on similar awards by the Tribunal for similar volumes of rubbish.
The landlord has failed to prove the rest of its claims for cleaning or rubbish removal. The claims are dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord made multiple claims for damaged, including sub-floor repairs for water damage, garden/lawn repairs, lock & door repairs.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises 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 RTA.
The landlord did not establish that damage occurred during the tenancy or, if it did, that Mr Uren was responsible for the damage. The landlord also did not prove any cost incurred or “out of pocket” expenses.
For example, in relation to the leak repair, the landlord claimed that $30,000 worth of damage had occurred between November (when Mr Uren should have advised that the there was a leak in the bathroom) and February (when a plumber investigated). The landlord sought $8,500 on the basis that he thought that seemed reasonable. He did not establish that Mr Uren knew of the leak. He did not provided evidence of the extent of the damage and how or when it was caused. He did not provide any evidence of the repair costs.
The evidence was similarly lacking in relation to the other claims. In relation to the lawns, the tenant provided a photograph from shortly before the hearing, which negates the landlord claim that the lawn needs to be replaced.
The landlord has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that Mr Uren breached his obligations as a tenant, or if he did, that the landlord has suffered the loss claimed because of any breach.
Except as expressly awarded the landlord claims are dismissed. As the landlord was substantially unsuccessful, I have not awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4878195 — Tenancy dispute at 20 Wellington Street, Phillipstown, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4878195 — Tenancy dispute at 20 Wellington Street, Phillipstown, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for power?

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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for power?

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