What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4883300 about?

The tribunal order states: Tania Marie MacDonald must pay David Falloon $3,588.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4883300?

Application Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,841.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4883300?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4883300?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11497407-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4883300 about?

The tribunal order states: Tania Marie MacDonald must pay David Falloon $3,588.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4883300?

Application Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,841.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4883300?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4883300?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11497407-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

53 Sefton Street, Twizel, Twizel 7901 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4883300 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4883300 — net $3,588.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears and rent in lieu of notice (to 21 September 2024	$3,841.00	Rent arrears and rent in lieu of notice (to 21 September 2024
Rubbish removal	$1,000.00	Rubbish removal
Application Fee	$27.00	Application Fee
Net award	$3,588.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,588.00

Order

Tania Marie MacDonald must pay David Falloon $3,588.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears and rent in lieu of notice (to 21 September 2024) $3,841.00 Rubbish removal$1,000.00 Application Fee$27.00 Total award$4,868.00 Bond$1,280.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,588.00
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,280.00 (6257086-002) to David Falloon immediately.
Mackenzie Country Real Estate Rentals Ltd (T/A LJ Hooker Twizel) (“LJ Hooker”) is removed as a party to Ms MacDonald’s application.
Ms MacDonald’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The parties attended a hearing in Timaru on 25 February 2025.
Representatives of LJ Hooker also attended. Ms MacDonald had commenced her application against that company. Following a case management conference in August 2024, Mr Falloon was added as a party. He subsequently made a cross application against Ms MacDonald.
Mr Falloon is the landlord. LJ Hooker was his agent for this tenancy. At the hearing on 25 February 2025, Ms MacDonald advised that she has no claims against LJ Hooker. That company is removed as a party to these proceedings.
Following the case management conference in August, I made directions for clarification of claims and provision of documents/evidence. The directions were not fully complied with by the parties.
Ms MacDonald did submit an updated list of her issues. I took her through that list at the start of the hearing to identify her claims. They were, broadly, allegations relating to failure to repair and maintain (or Healthy Homes issues), failure to advise of a change in landlord, breach of quiet enjoyment and/or unlawful entry and a claim for partial rent repayment because she could not use all of the premises.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, 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 and 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)
The parties had submitted a large volume of documents to The Tribunal. More than it would usually receive for claims of this nature. At the start of the hearing, I asked the parties to refer specifically to any of the documents they wanted me to consider in evidence. I indicated that they should not simply say that their position or evidence is “in the documents”.
Ms MacDonald started presenting her case by referring generally to the documents. I reminded her that I need to properly understand her claims and evidence and asked again for her to refer me to the specific evidence. She advised me that she could not because she had left her phone in the car and couldn’t access the documents without it. I offered her an adjournment to collect her phone. She declined.
I have read all the documentation submitted. I have placed greater weight on evidence which the parties specifically referred me to and which they explained in their oral evidence/submissions. Tenant Claims Quiet Enjoyment – Unlawful Entry
Ms MacDonald claims that Mr Falloon entered the premises three times in July 2023. She says that he did not give proper notice and that the visit amount to a breach of her quiet enjoyment.
The first visit was on 19 th July and the subsequent ones on 21 and 22 July. Ms MacDonald was not home for any of the visits. Her teenaged daughter was there for the first one and a friend for the other two.
Mr Falloon acknowledged the visits. He said they followed a request from Ms MacDonald for him to remove some furniture from the premises. Mr Falloon also said that he attempted to contact Ms MacDonald before the first visit but received no response. This was confirmed by Ms MacDonald who said that she discovered a message from Mr Falloon when she re-installed her SIM card later on 19 July (after Mr Falloon had been).
Ms MacDonald claims that her daughter was highly distressed by the 19 July visit and that there was some pre-existing reason for that. However, I did not hear from Ms MacDonald’s daughter. Nor did Ms MacDonald provide any corroborative documentary evidence which may go some way to explaining her claims (such as medical evidence).
Mr Falloon said that Ms MacDonald’s daughter knew who he was and allowed him to enter the premises. He advised that he would return for other items and a friend of Ms MacDonald’s was at the premises for the two following visits and helped him lift furniture.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
Ms MacDonald claims that Mr Falloon’s visits breached her right to quiet enjoyment and amounted to unlawful entry.
Mr Falloon reasonably believed that he was authorised to enter the premises. I did not hear from anyone who was there at the time, disputing his assessment. Further three visits, in response to a request by the tenant, to remove some furniture do not amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment.
The claims are dismissed. Repair & Maintenance – Healthy Homes Standards
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Ms MacDonald sought an unspecified amount of compensation for additional power charges incurred while a hot water cylinder was not functioning properly.
The landlord is a required to repair within a reasonable timeframe of becoming aware of the need to repair. At the hearing, Ms MacDonald said that she advised the property manager as soon as she became aware there was an issue with the cylinder. She said that the property manager responded promptly, and the cylinder was repaired within days. There was no breach of the landlord’s obligation of repair and maintenance. The claim is dismissed.
Ms MacDonald’s application also raises issues with mould at the premises and claims the landlord breached (an unspecified) Healthy Homes Standard. She did not actively pursue that claim at the hearing. She did not address: a. the location and extent of mould, b. how and when the issue was raised with the property manager or landlord, c. which Healthy Homes Standard she claimed had been breached (or identify the dates for compliance for this tenancy).
These issues were raised with Ms MacDonald at the case management conference. The tenancy started before the Healthy Homes Standards came into effect.
Ms MacDonald did not establish any claim in relation to mould or Healthy Homes compliance. Those aspects of her application are dismissed. Notice of Change of Landlord
Ms MacDonald claims that she was not properly notified when LJ Hooker stopped managing the tenancy in May 2023.
When a landlord’s or tenant’s interest passes to some other person, that other person shall, within 10 working days, advise the other party to the tenancy of new contact details, an address for service, a contact phone number and an email address. See section 15(2) RTA.
Mr Falloon was the landlord throughout this tenancy, his interest did not change. LJ Hooker did advise Ms MacDonald when they stopped managing the property for him. Ms MacDonald was provided with bank account details for Mr Falloon and made four payments to that account in June 2023.
Ms MacDonald has not established a breach of s15(2) RTA. Her claim is dismissed. Rent Reimbursement
Ms MacDonald claimed approximately $18,000 rent reimbursement because she could not use two bedrooms at the property as furniture was stored in them.
This is the only claim which Ms MacDonald attempted to quantify her loss. Her claim equates to a rent reduction of around $100 per week for the duration of the tenancy.
There was furniture stored in 2 of the bedrooms and Ms MacDonald did not use those rooms. However, the premises were tenanted as “partly furnished”. The landlord’s furniture was moved to the bedrooms to accommodate Ms MacDonald’s furniture. The landlord’s furniture was at the premises from the start of the tenancy in 2020 and the first record of any concern was in September 2023 when the Mr Falloon raised rent arrears with Ms MacDonald.
Mr Falloon’s position was that Ms MacDonald was looking to rent a 3-bedroom property and that 3 bedrooms were vacant and available to her even after the furniture was moved into the other two bedrooms. He also disputed that Ms MacDonald was paying for more than 3 bedrooms and provided evidence that the landlord had reduced the rent for this tenancy. The submission was that the rent reduction was to reflect Ms MacDonald’s request for a 3-bedroom home, but there was no other corroborative evidence to support that.
Ms MacDonald did not provide any evidence of what the market rent for a comparable 3-bedroom property would have been. She did not dispute that she rented the premises as semi or partially furnished.
Ms MacDonald did not establish that she is entitled to reimbursement of rent because of the landlord’s furniture being in the premises. This claim is also dismissed. Landlord Claims

How much is owed for rent?

This was a periodic tenancy. Ms MacDonald was required to give 28 days notice if she wished to terminate the tenancy. See s51 RTA.
Ms MacDonald made her last rent payment on 22 June 2023. At the hearing she acknowledged that she had stopped paying rent and said that was because she did not know how long she would stay at the property.
Mr Falloon attempted to engage with Ms MacDonald regarding the rent arrears in September 2023. In response, Ms MacDonald advised that she had left the premises, claimed LJ Hooker did not give her Mr Falloon’s details and she could not contact him (notwithstanding that she now says that he text her in July 2023), and raising issues with the property for the first time. Ms MacDonald’s email was sent on 16 September; so the landlord would be entitled to 28 days rent in lieu of notice from that date.
The landlord has claimed $3,841 to 21 September 2023 and have made an Order accordingly. The landlord provided rent records to establish the amount claimed.

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 claimed rubbish removal costs of $2,284.00. Ms MacDonald disputed that some of the items removed were hers. Given that both parties had large items at the premises at the ed of the tenancy, I have awarded $1,000 for rubbish removal.
As the landlord was partially successful with its claims, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4883300 — net $3,588.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears and rent in lieu of notice (to 21 September 2024	$3,841.00	Rent arrears and rent in lieu of notice (to 21 September 2024
Rubbish removal	$1,000.00	Rubbish removal
Application Fee	$27.00	Application Fee
Net award	$3,588.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,588.00

Order

Tania Marie MacDonald must pay David Falloon $3,588.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears and rent in lieu of notice (to 21 September 2024) $3,841.00 Rubbish removal$1,000.00 Application Fee$27.00 Total award$4,868.00 Bond$1,280.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,588.00
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,280.00 (6257086-002) to David Falloon immediately.
Mackenzie Country Real Estate Rentals Ltd (T/A LJ Hooker Twizel) (“LJ Hooker”) is removed as a party to Ms MacDonald’s application.
Ms MacDonald’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The parties attended a hearing in Timaru on 25 February 2025.
Representatives of LJ Hooker also attended. Ms MacDonald had commenced her application against that company. Following a case management conference in August 2024, Mr Falloon was added as a party. He subsequently made a cross application against Ms MacDonald.
Mr Falloon is the landlord. LJ Hooker was his agent for this tenancy. At the hearing on 25 February 2025, Ms MacDonald advised that she has no claims against LJ Hooker. That company is removed as a party to these proceedings.
Following the case management conference in August, I made directions for clarification of claims and provision of documents/evidence. The directions were not fully complied with by the parties.
Ms MacDonald did submit an updated list of her issues. I took her through that list at the start of the hearing to identify her claims. They were, broadly, allegations relating to failure to repair and maintain (or Healthy Homes issues), failure to advise of a change in landlord, breach of quiet enjoyment and/or unlawful entry and a claim for partial rent repayment because she could not use all of the premises.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, 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 and 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)
The parties had submitted a large volume of documents to The Tribunal. More than it would usually receive for claims of this nature. At the start of the hearing, I asked the parties to refer specifically to any of the documents they wanted me to consider in evidence. I indicated that they should not simply say that their position or evidence is “in the documents”.
Ms MacDonald started presenting her case by referring generally to the documents. I reminded her that I need to properly understand her claims and evidence and asked again for her to refer me to the specific evidence. She advised me that she could not because she had left her phone in the car and couldn’t access the documents without it. I offered her an adjournment to collect her phone. She declined.
I have read all the documentation submitted. I have placed greater weight on evidence which the parties specifically referred me to and which they explained in their oral evidence/submissions. Tenant Claims Quiet Enjoyment – Unlawful Entry
Ms MacDonald claims that Mr Falloon entered the premises three times in July 2023. She says that he did not give proper notice and that the visit amount to a breach of her quiet enjoyment.
The first visit was on 19 th July and the subsequent ones on 21 and 22 July. Ms MacDonald was not home for any of the visits. Her teenaged daughter was there for the first one and a friend for the other two.
Mr Falloon acknowledged the visits. He said they followed a request from Ms MacDonald for him to remove some furniture from the premises. Mr Falloon also said that he attempted to contact Ms MacDonald before the first visit but received no response. This was confirmed by Ms MacDonald who said that she discovered a message from Mr Falloon when she re-installed her SIM card later on 19 July (after Mr Falloon had been).
Ms MacDonald claims that her daughter was highly distressed by the 19 July visit and that there was some pre-existing reason for that. However, I did not hear from Ms MacDonald’s daughter. Nor did Ms MacDonald provide any corroborative documentary evidence which may go some way to explaining her claims (such as medical evidence).
Mr Falloon said that Ms MacDonald’s daughter knew who he was and allowed him to enter the premises. He advised that he would return for other items and a friend of Ms MacDonald’s was at the premises for the two following visits and helped him lift furniture.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
Ms MacDonald claims that Mr Falloon’s visits breached her right to quiet enjoyment and amounted to unlawful entry.
Mr Falloon reasonably believed that he was authorised to enter the premises. I did not hear from anyone who was there at the time, disputing his assessment. Further three visits, in response to a request by the tenant, to remove some furniture do not amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment.
The claims are dismissed. Repair & Maintenance – Healthy Homes Standards
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Ms MacDonald sought an unspecified amount of compensation for additional power charges incurred while a hot water cylinder was not functioning properly.
The landlord is a required to repair within a reasonable timeframe of becoming aware of the need to repair. At the hearing, Ms MacDonald said that she advised the property manager as soon as she became aware there was an issue with the cylinder. She said that the property manager responded promptly, and the cylinder was repaired within days. There was no breach of the landlord’s obligation of repair and maintenance. The claim is dismissed.
Ms MacDonald’s application also raises issues with mould at the premises and claims the landlord breached (an unspecified) Healthy Homes Standard. She did not actively pursue that claim at the hearing. She did not address: a. the location and extent of mould, b. how and when the issue was raised with the property manager or landlord, c. which Healthy Homes Standard she claimed had been breached (or identify the dates for compliance for this tenancy).
These issues were raised with Ms MacDonald at the case management conference. The tenancy started before the Healthy Homes Standards came into effect.
Ms MacDonald did not establish any claim in relation to mould or Healthy Homes compliance. Those aspects of her application are dismissed. Notice of Change of Landlord
Ms MacDonald claims that she was not properly notified when LJ Hooker stopped managing the tenancy in May 2023.
When a landlord’s or tenant’s interest passes to some other person, that other person shall, within 10 working days, advise the other party to the tenancy of new contact details, an address for service, a contact phone number and an email address. See section 15(2) RTA.
Mr Falloon was the landlord throughout this tenancy, his interest did not change. LJ Hooker did advise Ms MacDonald when they stopped managing the property for him. Ms MacDonald was provided with bank account details for Mr Falloon and made four payments to that account in June 2023.
Ms MacDonald has not established a breach of s15(2) RTA. Her claim is dismissed. Rent Reimbursement
Ms MacDonald claimed approximately $18,000 rent reimbursement because she could not use two bedrooms at the property as furniture was stored in them.
This is the only claim which Ms MacDonald attempted to quantify her loss. Her claim equates to a rent reduction of around $100 per week for the duration of the tenancy.
There was furniture stored in 2 of the bedrooms and Ms MacDonald did not use those rooms. However, the premises were tenanted as “partly furnished”. The landlord’s furniture was moved to the bedrooms to accommodate Ms MacDonald’s furniture. The landlord’s furniture was at the premises from the start of the tenancy in 2020 and the first record of any concern was in September 2023 when the Mr Falloon raised rent arrears with Ms MacDonald.
Mr Falloon’s position was that Ms MacDonald was looking to rent a 3-bedroom property and that 3 bedrooms were vacant and available to her even after the furniture was moved into the other two bedrooms. He also disputed that Ms MacDonald was paying for more than 3 bedrooms and provided evidence that the landlord had reduced the rent for this tenancy. The submission was that the rent reduction was to reflect Ms MacDonald’s request for a 3-bedroom home, but there was no other corroborative evidence to support that.
Ms MacDonald did not provide any evidence of what the market rent for a comparable 3-bedroom property would have been. She did not dispute that she rented the premises as semi or partially furnished.
Ms MacDonald did not establish that she is entitled to reimbursement of rent because of the landlord’s furniture being in the premises. This claim is also dismissed. Landlord Claims

How much is owed for rent?

This was a periodic tenancy. Ms MacDonald was required to give 28 days notice if she wished to terminate the tenancy. See s51 RTA.
Ms MacDonald made her last rent payment on 22 June 2023. At the hearing she acknowledged that she had stopped paying rent and said that was because she did not know how long she would stay at the property.
Mr Falloon attempted to engage with Ms MacDonald regarding the rent arrears in September 2023. In response, Ms MacDonald advised that she had left the premises, claimed LJ Hooker did not give her Mr Falloon’s details and she could not contact him (notwithstanding that she now says that he text her in July 2023), and raising issues with the property for the first time. Ms MacDonald’s email was sent on 16 September; so the landlord would be entitled to 28 days rent in lieu of notice from that date.
The landlord has claimed $3,841 to 21 September 2023 and have made an Order accordingly. The landlord provided rent records to establish the amount claimed.

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 claimed rubbish removal costs of $2,284.00. Ms MacDonald disputed that some of the items removed were hers. Given that both parties had large items at the premises at the ed of the tenancy, I have awarded $1,000 for rubbish removal.
As the landlord was partially successful with its claims, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4883300 — Rent arrears at 53 Sefton Street, Twizel, Twizel 7901

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4883300 — Rent arrears at 53 Sefton Street, Twizel, Twizel 7901

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions