What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4886703 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4886703?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,220.00 awarded to landlord; Hole In Wall: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $253.68 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4886703?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4886703?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11308762-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4886703 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4886703?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,220.00 awarded to landlord; Hole In Wall: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $253.68 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4886703?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4886703?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11308762-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4886703 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4886703 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4886703 — net $3,586.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,220.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$253.68	15. The landlord seeks water rates arrears of $253.68 and provided copies of water rates invoices in evidence.
Repairs: Hole in wall	$92.00	Repairs: Hole in wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,586.12
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,586.12

Claims and awards for application 4886703 — net $3,586.12 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $3,220.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates

Amount: $253.68
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: 15. The landlord seeks water rates arrears of $253.68 and provided copies of water rates invoices in evidence.

Repairs: Hole in wall

Amount: $92.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Hole in wall

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $3,586.12

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $3,586.12

Dismissed claims

Compensation

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage Water Rates Compensation

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For The Lawz Family Trust Angel $3,586.12 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,586.12 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For The Lawz Family Trust Angel immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $333.88 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing.
The matter had been adjourned on 18 November 2024. No evidence was considered at that hearing. The Tribunal ordered the tenants to file an application for representation if they wished to be represented at the hearing. No application was filed. The tenants asked for [Person] to represent them. That request was declined as the tenants had failed to comply with the earlier Tribunal order. The tenant, [Tenant 1], represented all the tenants. I allowed [Person] to provide assistance to [Tenant 1].
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
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 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, the landlord has submitted documentary evidence. 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.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The evidence put forward by the landlord did not make the end date for the tenancy entirely clear. The landlord said that a notice terminating the tenancy had been given to the tenant. The notice required the tenant to leave the premises by 26 May 2024.The landlord was not able to locate the notice and did not file a copy with the Tribunal. The landlord representative was at a disadvantage during the hearing as she had not been the property manager for this tenancy and had only limited personal knowledge of what had occurred. The property manager who had dealt directly with this tenancy is no longer with the landlord company.
The landlord provided a rent summary through until 10 June 2024. The summary indicates that the arrears at that date were $5,320.00. The landlord said that the tenants had not returned the keys at the end of the tenancy and that there were still tenant belongings at the premises and cleaning to be completed.
The tenants said that having received the notice to terminate the tenancy, they moved out on 5 May 2024. They said that the property manager gave them permission to return to the house after that date to complete work on the house. The tenant could not recall the date on which the notice to terminate the tenancy was given.
Having reviewed the evidence, I do not consider that the actual end date for the tenancy is clear. I am satisfied that the tenants were given a notice of termination of the tenancy, with the termination date to be 26 May 2024. The tenants did not provide evidence of any notice given by them to terminate the tenancy earlier than that date. I order the tenants to pay rent arrears to 26 May 2024, which I calculate to be $3,220.00. The burden of proving that rent arrears beyond that date remain owing is on the landlord. I am not persuaded that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the evidentiary burden for rent arrears after 26 May 2024 and the balance of the rent arrears claim after that date is dismissed.
The landlord seeks water rates arrears of $253.68 and provided copies of water rates invoices in evidence.
The tenants said that landlord’s contractors were on site and that they had also used water.
The invoices cover a period of months. Insufficient proof has been provided by the tenants that water use by contractors has resulted in some of the water rates charges. The matter had not been raised with the landlord. Where a tenant disputes water rates charges (which in this case does not include waste water or fixed charges) they need to provide some supporting evidence. That evidence was not provided. The tenants are ordered to pay $253.68.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims compensation of $319.00 for carpet cleaning as the carpets were stained. The landlord has provided an invoice for the work. The landlord says that the tenants had agreed to carpet cleaning being done. The tenants said that they accepted this on a conditional basis and subject to receiving a quote for the work which was acceptable to them. They say that the carpet was in poor condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
Normally, in a claim of this type, the Tribunal would expect to see photographic evidence of the stains. In the order dated 18 November 2024, the Tribunal suggested that filing photographs of the carpet at the start and end of the tenancy would assist their claim. No photographs have been filed. This was a tenancy lasting approximately 2 years. No doubt inspections were carried out during the tenancy. The landlord was unable to say if the issue of stains in the carpet had been previously raised.
The burden of proving the claim is on the landlord. Insufficient evidence has been filed to persuade me that it is more likely than not that the carpets had been stained by the tenants during the tenancy and that the carpets had been left less than reasonably clean and tidy. The claim is dismissed.

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.
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. The landlord was not insured.
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 tenants informed the property manager that the oven was not working. The landlord sent a contractor to investigate. The contractor discovered that the landlord’s oven had been removed by the tenants. The tenants had replaced the landlord’s oven. The replacement oven had not been consented or certified. It did not fit the available space. The tenants were told to remove their oven and return the landlord’s oven so that the possibility of it being repaired could be investigated. The tenants said that the landlord’s oven had been disposed of.
A replacement oven was obtained and the landlord claims $1,312.00 for the oven and its installation. The landlord was unable to provide any evidence of the age or condition of the first oven.
The tenants say that when they initially moved into the premises, only one element on the oven was working. The oven smelled and they discovered a dead rat inside the oven. They asked the landlord for a replacement. Three months passed without the oven being replaced. The tenants obtained a second hand oven and installed it themselves. They say that the previous property manager had seen the “old” oven and had given them permission to dispose of it.
The conflict in evidence of the respective parties is such that I am simply unable to say what occurred with the oven. I cannot say how old the landlord’s oven was so that the issues of depreciation and betterment can be considered. I cannot say what condition the oven was in at the commencement of the tenancy. I cannot say whether the previous property manager approved of both the disposal of the landlord oven and the installation of the tenant’s replacement oven. The evidentiary burden has not been satisfied and the landlord claim for compensation is dismissed.
The landlord says that there was a hole in an upstairs bedroom. The landlord provided an invoice for repairs of $92.00.
The tenants accept that there was a hole which had been caused as a result of there being no door stop. The tenant says that the costs for the repair of a small hole are excessive.
The damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The charge of $92.00 for a tradesman to travel to the premises and complete the work is not excessive and the tenants are to pay $92.00 to the landlord.
The landlord has been substantially successful and the tenant is ordered to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenants applied for name suppression. Having reviewed the findings, I consider that the tenants have also been substantially successful and suppression of the tenants’ names and details is ordered.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4886703 — net $3,586.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,220.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$253.68	15. The landlord seeks water rates arrears of $253.68 and provided copies of water rates invoices in evidence.
Repairs: Hole in wall	$92.00	Repairs: Hole in wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,586.12
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,586.12

Claims and awards for application 4886703 — net $3,586.12 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $3,220.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates

Amount: $253.68
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: 15. The landlord seeks water rates arrears of $253.68 and provided copies of water rates invoices in evidence.

Repairs: Hole in wall

Amount: $92.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Hole in wall

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $3,586.12

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $3,586.12

Dismissed claims

Compensation

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage Water Rates Compensation

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For The Lawz Family Trust Angel $3,586.12 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,586.12 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For The Lawz Family Trust Angel immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $333.88 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing.
The matter had been adjourned on 18 November 2024. No evidence was considered at that hearing. The Tribunal ordered the tenants to file an application for representation if they wished to be represented at the hearing. No application was filed. The tenants asked for [Person] to represent them. That request was declined as the tenants had failed to comply with the earlier Tribunal order. The tenant, [Tenant 1], represented all the tenants. I allowed [Person] to provide assistance to [Tenant 1].
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
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 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, the landlord has submitted documentary evidence. 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.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The evidence put forward by the landlord did not make the end date for the tenancy entirely clear. The landlord said that a notice terminating the tenancy had been given to the tenant. The notice required the tenant to leave the premises by 26 May 2024.The landlord was not able to locate the notice and did not file a copy with the Tribunal. The landlord representative was at a disadvantage during the hearing as she had not been the property manager for this tenancy and had only limited personal knowledge of what had occurred. The property manager who had dealt directly with this tenancy is no longer with the landlord company.
The landlord provided a rent summary through until 10 June 2024. The summary indicates that the arrears at that date were $5,320.00. The landlord said that the tenants had not returned the keys at the end of the tenancy and that there were still tenant belongings at the premises and cleaning to be completed.
The tenants said that having received the notice to terminate the tenancy, they moved out on 5 May 2024. They said that the property manager gave them permission to return to the house after that date to complete work on the house. The tenant could not recall the date on which the notice to terminate the tenancy was given.
Having reviewed the evidence, I do not consider that the actual end date for the tenancy is clear. I am satisfied that the tenants were given a notice of termination of the tenancy, with the termination date to be 26 May 2024. The tenants did not provide evidence of any notice given by them to terminate the tenancy earlier than that date. I order the tenants to pay rent arrears to 26 May 2024, which I calculate to be $3,220.00. The burden of proving that rent arrears beyond that date remain owing is on the landlord. I am not persuaded that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the evidentiary burden for rent arrears after 26 May 2024 and the balance of the rent arrears claim after that date is dismissed.
The landlord seeks water rates arrears of $253.68 and provided copies of water rates invoices in evidence.
The tenants said that landlord’s contractors were on site and that they had also used water.
The invoices cover a period of months. Insufficient proof has been provided by the tenants that water use by contractors has resulted in some of the water rates charges. The matter had not been raised with the landlord. Where a tenant disputes water rates charges (which in this case does not include waste water or fixed charges) they need to provide some supporting evidence. That evidence was not provided. The tenants are ordered to pay $253.68.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims compensation of $319.00 for carpet cleaning as the carpets were stained. The landlord has provided an invoice for the work. The landlord says that the tenants had agreed to carpet cleaning being done. The tenants said that they accepted this on a conditional basis and subject to receiving a quote for the work which was acceptable to them. They say that the carpet was in poor condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
Normally, in a claim of this type, the Tribunal would expect to see photographic evidence of the stains. In the order dated 18 November 2024, the Tribunal suggested that filing photographs of the carpet at the start and end of the tenancy would assist their claim. No photographs have been filed. This was a tenancy lasting approximately 2 years. No doubt inspections were carried out during the tenancy. The landlord was unable to say if the issue of stains in the carpet had been previously raised.
The burden of proving the claim is on the landlord. Insufficient evidence has been filed to persuade me that it is more likely than not that the carpets had been stained by the tenants during the tenancy and that the carpets had been left less than reasonably clean and tidy. The claim is dismissed.

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.
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. The landlord was not insured.
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 tenants informed the property manager that the oven was not working. The landlord sent a contractor to investigate. The contractor discovered that the landlord’s oven had been removed by the tenants. The tenants had replaced the landlord’s oven. The replacement oven had not been consented or certified. It did not fit the available space. The tenants were told to remove their oven and return the landlord’s oven so that the possibility of it being repaired could be investigated. The tenants said that the landlord’s oven had been disposed of.
A replacement oven was obtained and the landlord claims $1,312.00 for the oven and its installation. The landlord was unable to provide any evidence of the age or condition of the first oven.
The tenants say that when they initially moved into the premises, only one element on the oven was working. The oven smelled and they discovered a dead rat inside the oven. They asked the landlord for a replacement. Three months passed without the oven being replaced. The tenants obtained a second hand oven and installed it themselves. They say that the previous property manager had seen the “old” oven and had given them permission to dispose of it.
The conflict in evidence of the respective parties is such that I am simply unable to say what occurred with the oven. I cannot say how old the landlord’s oven was so that the issues of depreciation and betterment can be considered. I cannot say what condition the oven was in at the commencement of the tenancy. I cannot say whether the previous property manager approved of both the disposal of the landlord oven and the installation of the tenant’s replacement oven. The evidentiary burden has not been satisfied and the landlord claim for compensation is dismissed.
The landlord says that there was a hole in an upstairs bedroom. The landlord provided an invoice for repairs of $92.00.
The tenants accept that there was a hole which had been caused as a result of there being no door stop. The tenant says that the costs for the repair of a small hole are excessive.
The damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The charge of $92.00 for a tradesman to travel to the premises and complete the work is not excessive and the tenants are to pay $92.00 to the landlord.
The landlord has been substantially successful and the tenant is ordered to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenants applied for name suppression. Having reviewed the findings, I consider that the tenants have also been substantially successful and suppression of the tenants’ names and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4886703 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4886703 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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