What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4882960 about?

The tribunal order states: Matthew Richard Cochrane and Suzanna Craig must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4882960?

Cleaning: $257.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Oven Rack: $97.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $258.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4882960?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4882960?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10633322-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4882960 about?

The tribunal order states: Matthew Richard Cochrane and Suzanna Craig must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4882960?

Cleaning: $257.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Oven Rack: $97.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $258.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4882960?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4882960?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10633322-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4882960 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4882960 — net $933.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,500.00	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$257.00	d tidy standard. The sum claimed is reasonable and the tenant is ordered to pay $257.00.
Lawns and Garden work	$100.00	r that some further work was required by the tenant and order the tenant to pay $100.00 toward the garden work.
Lock/key replacement	$400.00	Lock/key replacement
Oven rack	$97.75	tenant said that the rack had simply gone missing. The tenant is ordered to pay $97.75.
Repairs: Carpet	$258.75	Repairs: Carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$933.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$933.94

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4882960 — net $933.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,500.00	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$257.00	d tidy standard. The sum claimed is reasonable and the tenant is ordered to pay $257.00.
Lawns and Garden work	$100.00	r that some further work was required by the tenant and order the tenant to pay $100.00 toward the garden work.
Lock/key replacement	$400.00	Lock/key replacement
Oven rack	$97.75	tenant said that the rack had simply gone missing. The tenant is ordered to pay $97.75.
Repairs: Carpet	$258.75	Repairs: Carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$933.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$933.94

Order

Matthew Richard Cochrane and Suzanna Craig must pay [The landlord/s] $933.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 26 July 2024. [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord and Mr Cochrane represented both tenants.
The tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed] (“the premises”) commenced on 26 April 2021. The date when the tenancy ended is in dispute. This was a fixed term tenancy, with the fixed term ending on 24 April 2024.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the tenant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. Similarly, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “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 more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing.
In this case, both parties have submitted documentary evidence including emails, and photos. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.
Prior to reviewing the evidence of the parties in relation to these claims, I wish to record that I found the parties to this hearing to be diligent and honest people. I have absolutely no doubt that all parties came to the hearing with a genuine desire to provide their evidence in a truthful manner.
The tenant’s claims are; • Release of the bond. • Landlord acting to terminate tenancy without grounds. • Dispute as to the termination date of the tenancy. • Breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment.
The landlord claims are; • Rent arrears. • Compensation for damage to curtains. • Compensation for damage to a door handle. • Failure to return keys at end of the tenancy. • Compensation for damage to the carpet. • Compensation for cleaning, carpet cleaning and garden work. • Replacing chattel. • Release of the bond • Reimbursement of the filing fee. Tenant claims
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA RTA.
Under Section 60AA RTA, a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord served a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy on the tenant. That notice records that the tenancy is to end because extensive alterations/refurbishment/repairs were to be carried out at the premises by the landlord and that it would not be practicable for the tenant to remain in residence whilst the work was carried out. The tenant was notified that the tenancy would end on 6 May 2024.The notice complies with the formal requirements for a notice under the RTA.
The first issue that can be resolved is the end date for the tenancy. The tenancy was for a fixed term which ended on 24 April 2024. Where a fixed term tenancy ends, without either party giving notice to terminate the tenancy, the tenancy becomes a periodic tenancy.
The tenant confirmed that they had not given the landlord notice to terminate the tenancy.
In those circumstances, assuming for the moment that the landlord notice of termination was valid, the tenancy would end on 6 May 2024, the landlord having given notice to terminate the tenancy.
Was the notice to terminate valid?
Section 51(2)(f) RTA provides that the landlord may give a tenant 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy where “extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken”. The work, or a material step must be taken within 90 days after the termination date.
The tenant says that they were informed by the landlord that the only work being carried out was the changing of the kitchen bench top. The tenant was unable to provide any supporting evidence of this discussion. The tenant says that he has made enquiries and has been told by contractors that a job of this nature could be completed within a day.
The tenant says that he saw an advertisement online in mid-April 2024 offering the premises for rent at an increased rental of $950.00 per week.
The tenant said that he only saw the advertisement once and that he was unable to locate it again. The advertisement was seen by the tenant prior to the tenancy ending.
The landlord agreed that the kitchen bench did require repair.
The landlord provided a letter from the contractors instructed to carry out the renovations. That letter is dated 8 May 2024 and records that the work to be carried out was: • Kitchen bench replaced. • New Hob • New back slash • Paint windowsills. • Paint water damage in the bathroom and above the shower • Other paint touch ups as required.
The letter goes on to state that the work needed to be completed while the property was empty as the power and water would be turned off, there would be dust and paint fumes as well as adhesive /glue smells. The bathroom would not be available for use for several days. I note that the premises only has one bathroom. Trades people would be coming and going throughout the process. The work was estimated to take not less than 16 days to complete.
The landlord said that the work ended up taking longer, due to delays in products arriving. The work was completed on 14 July 2024.
The landlord said that they did advertise for new tenants in mid-April 2024.The new tenancy would not commence until the proposed alterations had been completed. The landlord said that the new rental figure advertised was $850.00 per week. The property has now been relet, although the tenant has not for personal reasons moved in yet.
This claim has been brought by the tenant. The burden of proving the claim is on the tenant. The tenant must prove that it is more likely than not that the notice was not issued due the landlord needing to carry out extensive alterations and that it would have been practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation.
Work that requires a tenant to move out is, by its nature likely to be extensive. At the same time, an issue that requires the tenant to move out temporarily for one day for plumbing work to be undertaken in a kitchen or bathroom may not be extensive. Each case will have to be determined on its particular facts and in light of the nature, extent and effect of the intended work.
In this case, work was required to two of the most important rooms in a house, the kitchen and bathroom The work required water and power to be off. The work was expected to take more than two weeks and as is often the way, ended up take longer.
For these reasons, I am satisfied that the intended renovations were “extensive.” I am also satisfied that in a single bathroom house, it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation for more than two weeks while the work was carried out. The subsection does not say that the landlord cannot terminate if work can be conducted while the tenant moves out temporarily and then moves back in. Rather, the provision enables the landlord to terminate the tenancy if the tenant cannot remain in occupation while extensive work is undertaken.
I find that the notice to terminate the tenancy was valid and the tenants’ claim is dismissed.
Matthew Richard Cochrane and Suzanna Craig claim the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant says that the level of communication between the landlord and tenant was poor. The tenants said that during this three-year tenancy, they received hundreds of messages from the landlord after 5pm.The tenant says that during the tenancy they tried to contact the landlord by telephone and that on ten occasions the calls were not answered by the landlord.
The landlord asked the tenant if messages had been left on her answer phone to those calls. The tenant said that they had not left messages.
I find that the behaviour complained of by the tenant does not meet the statutory requirement for it to amount to harassment. There has been no pattern of behaviour by the landlord directed at the tenants in an attempt to trouble, wear out or exhaust the tenant. A small number if unanswered calls and messages sent after 5pm do not in my view amount to harassment.
The evidence provided by the tenant does not support the claim and it is dismissed. Landlord claims
I have found that the tenancy ended on 6 May 2024. The landlord has provided a rent summary which proves that the rent arrears at the end of the tenancy amount to $1500.00. The tenant is ordered to pay $1,500.00 to the landlord.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided a large number of photos showing the premises at the end of the tenancy. The photos indicate in my view, that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant said that he considered that the photos did not give an accurate picture of the premises and made the premises look worse than they in fact were. The tenant did not provide any evidence in support of that proposition.
The landlord provided an estimate for the cleaning from [cleaning company]. The landlord said that the work had not been carried out yet as the landlord couldn’t afford it.
The work described in the estimate is work required to bring the premises to a standard where they could be relet. The estimated fee is $1,086.75. The landlord accepted that the standard required by a tenant was a lower standard, being reasonably clean and tidy. Having reviewed the photos evidence, I consider that a reasonable charge to bring the premises to that reasonably clean and tidy standard would be $500.00 and the tenant is ordered to pay that sum.
The landlord seeks $257.00 for carpet cleaning in the hallway and two bedrooms. The cleaner noted that there appeared to be food stains and pet hair. The landlord provided photos in support. The tenant said that they had steam cleaned the carpets. I prefer the photographic evidence provided by the landlord. I consider that the carpets did need cleaning to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. The sum claimed is reasonable and the tenant is ordered to pay $257.00.
The landlord seeks $250.00 for weeding and “tidying leaves” on the property. The landlord provided photos of the exterior garden. The tenant said that they had weeded some areas of the garden. Having considered the evidence provided, I consider that some further work was required by the tenant and order the tenant to pay $100.00 toward the garden work.
The tenant did not return the keys to the garage door and garage side door. The tenants said that they never received the keys at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord provided a copy of the check in document provided to the tenant at the commencement to the tenancy. That document refers to the two keys as having been provided. I prefer the evidence of the landlord.
The invoice provided is for $887.36. It includes a charge for replacing a door handle which will be referred to later in this order. As best as I am able, it appears that the charge for the key and lock work would be approximately $400.00, and I consider that to be a reasonable charge for the work on the two locks.
An oven rack was missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice for the replacement of $97.95. The tenant said that the rack had simply gone missing. The tenant is ordered to pay $97.75.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The landlord is insured. The policy of insurance carries an excess of $700.00 on each claim.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The landlord says that the curtains were damaged. Photos were provided showing pulls and rips on the curtains. The tenant says that the curtain was already torn at the commencement of the tenancy and that the tear got progressively worse throughout the tenancy. The tenant provided copies of landlord inspection reports which do not refer to the condition of the curtains.
The evidence provided is not sufficient to show that the curtains were not already damaged to an extent at the commencement of the tenancy. Any subsequent damage may have been because of normal usage by the tenant. The landlord has been unable to prove to my satisfaction that the damage has occurred during the course of the tenancy. Any further damage caused by the tenant was in my view fair wear and tear.
The landlord seeks compensation for repairs to a door handle. The tenant accepted that the handle had been damaged during the tenancy but went on to say that it had occurred whilst the tenant was opening the door. The damage is in my view fair wear and is damage resulting from the handle being used for precisely the purpose it was designed for. The claim is dismissed as it is fair wear and tear.
The landlord says that an area of carpet was damaged. The landlord provided photos and an invoice for $258.75 for repairs. The tenant said that he hadn’t been aware of the damage.
I find that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount claimed is proven and the tenant must pay $258.75 to the landlord.
As [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in these proceedings and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in these proceedings and the tenant application for suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4882960 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4882960 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Award balance

Claims & awards

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