What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4894940 about?

The tribunal order states: Samantha (Sami) Gray and Dennis (Dee) Gray must pay Lipscombe Family

How much money was awarded in case 4894940?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $526.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,623.56 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4894940?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4894940?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10939062-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4894940 about?

The tribunal order states: Samantha (Sami) Gray and Dennis (Dee) Gray must pay Lipscombe Family

How much money was awarded in case 4894940?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $526.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,623.56 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4894940?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4894940?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10939062-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

46 King Street, Waiuku, Waiuku 2123 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4894940 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4894940 — net $4,520.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10 May	$3,623.56	Rent arrears to 10 May
Cleaning	$350.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$526.50	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,520.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,520.50

Order

Samantha (Sami) Gray and Dennis (Dee) Gray must pay Lipscombe Family Trust (Trustees: Craig Lipscombe, Nicole (Nicky) Lipscombe & Dean Lipscombe) $4,520.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Lipscombe Family Trust (Trustees: Craig Lipscombe, Nicole (Nicky) Lipscombe & Dean Lipscombe) shall dispose of the food Caravan registration 3G 727 (the Caravan) left at the premises by the tenant by: a. Selling the Caravan by public auction or by private contract at a reasonable market price,
The amount owing to the applicant out of the proceeds of any sale is $4520.00
Lipscombe Family Trust (Trustees: Craig Lipscombe, Nicole (Nicky) Lipscombe & Dean Lipscombe) must pay the proceeds of any sale, less the amount owing, to the Bond Centre together with a copy of this order.
The landlord’s claims for compensation for unlawful use, the landlord claim for loss of rent from 10 May to 7 June 2024 is dismissed.
The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended today’s hearing. The tenant did not attend or seek an adjournment. I am satisfied that the tenant was notified of today’s hearing and therefore proceeded in their absence.
This was a four-year tenancy.
The tenancy ended when the tenant’s defaulted on their obligations under a conditional termination order TT483705.The tenants were subsequently evicted from the tenancy on the 7 May 2024, but were allowed to remain in the property until Friday 10 May until they could move their possessions out and until they found another place to live. The landlord’s claims.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and rent owing to 10 May 2024, costs of changing the locks $526.50, cleaning costs $1037.50 (which included some decontamination cleaning) and costs of methamphetamine testing. The landlord claims that the tenants or their invitees have used methamphetamine at the property which is a breach of section 40(2)(b) (using the property for an unlawful use). The landlord is also seeking rent till the 7 June 2024, because they claim that as a result of the tenant leaving the property in that condition, they were unable to offer the property for rent until the 7 June 2024.
The tenant has filed a cross application, she claims that the landlord unlawfully seized her food truck at the end of the tenancy. The burden of proof and evidence.
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. 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.”
In making any decision I have considered all the evidence and submissions by each party.

How much is owed for rent?

I am satisfied that the tenancy ended by eviction on the 7 May 2024. The tenants are liable for rent until that date. The landlord provided a rent statement showing the rent owing until that date. Section 60 RTA provides that a tenant who remains in occupation after a tenancy is liable for rent whilst they are in occupation of the premises. Therefore, as I am satisfied that the tenant was in occupation of the premises from the 7-10 May the tenant is also liable for rent from the 7 May to the 10 May as claimed.
The rent owed includes some of the rent arrears in Order 483705 dated 20 March 2024. The landlord has not enforced that order as a monetary order. Therefore, the rent award made in this order supersedes the mediated order of the 20 March 2024.
The landlord also claimed rent from 10 May to 7 June. The landlord told me today that they ended up refreshing and renovating the property over that time. I consider it more likely that the landlord’s could rent the property our as a result of the refurbishment they were undertaking rather than as a result of the tenant’s breaches and therefore I dismiss the landlord’s claim for rent from 10 May to 7 June.

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 claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord had the property cleaned by Franklin Carpet Cleaning on the 13 and 14 of May at a cost of $1037.50.
At today’s hearing the landlord showed me a video of the condition of the property taken on the 10 May 2024 after the tenants had left. The video shows that some cleaning has been done by the tenants but that the carpets were heavily soiled and stained and that extra cleaning was needed to bring the property up to a reasonable standard. The landlord says that the surfaces and floors and windows needed cleaning. The landlord says that they got the property cleaned to see if it would come up to a standard where it could be re rented without refurbishment, but as it did not do so the landlord continued with refurbishment.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
Having seen the video of the property taken on 10 May, I consider that the landlord should be award $350.00 for cleaning.
I am satisfied that the tenant failed to quit the premises in accordance with s 40 (1)(e) and then failed to give back all of the keys and security devices, as a result the landlord had to change the locks. I therefore award the landlord the cost of changing the locks $526.50.
The amounts ordered are proved. The landlord’s claim for unlawful use of the property.
The landlord tested the property for methamphetamine at the end of tenancy. They confirmed today that they had not completed any pre tenancy methamphetamine testing. This makes it difficult to prove that any contamination of the property was caused by these tenants whilst in the tenancy.
In any case the levels of methamphetamine are well below the levels of 15 ug/ 100 cm3, which the Tribunal normally regards as being the level of contamination.
The landlord has not proven that the tenants used methamphetamine or contaminated the premises with methamphetamine and therefore their claim for the cost of testing is dismissed. Disposal of the food truck/ caravan.
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods that the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant left her food truck/ caravan at the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided evidence today that he had tried to contact her to arrange for the truck to be picked up. The tenant has not picked the truck up.
On the 28 August 2024, following a Tribunal hearing where the landlord was told to make contact with the tenant to have her pick up the food truck/ caravan, the landlord did so, by text. The tenant made a time to come and pick up the caravan but never did so. The caravan remains on site some 5 months after the tenancy ended.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the caravan to the tenant. The caravan/ food truck has a value above the cost of storing, transporting and selling . The landlord must sell these goods at a reasonable market price.
The landlord may deduct any amount owing from the sale proceeds, and must pay the balance to the Bond Centre. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2),(3) and (4), 62C(1)(b),(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The tenant’s claim.
The tenant claims the landlord has taken her food truck.
A landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. See section 33(1) and (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 33(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
As indicated above the landlord provided evidence today that he has tried to return the food truck/ caravan to the tenant but she has not come and collected it at the time arranged.
I am satisfied that the landlord has not seized or disposed of Ms Gray’s goods, it is because of the tenant’s failure to come and retrieve the truck at the time arranged that the landlords still have possession of her truck. Accordingly, the tenant’s application is dismissed. The filing fee
Because the landlords have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed them with the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4894940 — net $4,520.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10 May	$3,623.56	Rent arrears to 10 May
Cleaning	$350.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$526.50	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,520.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,520.50

Order

Samantha (Sami) Gray and Dennis (Dee) Gray must pay Lipscombe Family Trust (Trustees: Craig Lipscombe, Nicole (Nicky) Lipscombe & Dean Lipscombe) $4,520.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Lipscombe Family Trust (Trustees: Craig Lipscombe, Nicole (Nicky) Lipscombe & Dean Lipscombe) shall dispose of the food Caravan registration 3G 727 (the Caravan) left at the premises by the tenant by: a. Selling the Caravan by public auction or by private contract at a reasonable market price,
The amount owing to the applicant out of the proceeds of any sale is $4520.00
Lipscombe Family Trust (Trustees: Craig Lipscombe, Nicole (Nicky) Lipscombe & Dean Lipscombe) must pay the proceeds of any sale, less the amount owing, to the Bond Centre together with a copy of this order.
The landlord’s claims for compensation for unlawful use, the landlord claim for loss of rent from 10 May to 7 June 2024 is dismissed.
The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended today’s hearing. The tenant did not attend or seek an adjournment. I am satisfied that the tenant was notified of today’s hearing and therefore proceeded in their absence.
This was a four-year tenancy.
The tenancy ended when the tenant’s defaulted on their obligations under a conditional termination order TT483705.The tenants were subsequently evicted from the tenancy on the 7 May 2024, but were allowed to remain in the property until Friday 10 May until they could move their possessions out and until they found another place to live. The landlord’s claims.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and rent owing to 10 May 2024, costs of changing the locks $526.50, cleaning costs $1037.50 (which included some decontamination cleaning) and costs of methamphetamine testing. The landlord claims that the tenants or their invitees have used methamphetamine at the property which is a breach of section 40(2)(b) (using the property for an unlawful use). The landlord is also seeking rent till the 7 June 2024, because they claim that as a result of the tenant leaving the property in that condition, they were unable to offer the property for rent until the 7 June 2024.
The tenant has filed a cross application, she claims that the landlord unlawfully seized her food truck at the end of the tenancy. The burden of proof and evidence.
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. 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.”
In making any decision I have considered all the evidence and submissions by each party.

How much is owed for rent?

I am satisfied that the tenancy ended by eviction on the 7 May 2024. The tenants are liable for rent until that date. The landlord provided a rent statement showing the rent owing until that date. Section 60 RTA provides that a tenant who remains in occupation after a tenancy is liable for rent whilst they are in occupation of the premises. Therefore, as I am satisfied that the tenant was in occupation of the premises from the 7-10 May the tenant is also liable for rent from the 7 May to the 10 May as claimed.
The rent owed includes some of the rent arrears in Order 483705 dated 20 March 2024. The landlord has not enforced that order as a monetary order. Therefore, the rent award made in this order supersedes the mediated order of the 20 March 2024.
The landlord also claimed rent from 10 May to 7 June. The landlord told me today that they ended up refreshing and renovating the property over that time. I consider it more likely that the landlord’s could rent the property our as a result of the refurbishment they were undertaking rather than as a result of the tenant’s breaches and therefore I dismiss the landlord’s claim for rent from 10 May to 7 June.

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 claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord had the property cleaned by Franklin Carpet Cleaning on the 13 and 14 of May at a cost of $1037.50.
At today’s hearing the landlord showed me a video of the condition of the property taken on the 10 May 2024 after the tenants had left. The video shows that some cleaning has been done by the tenants but that the carpets were heavily soiled and stained and that extra cleaning was needed to bring the property up to a reasonable standard. The landlord says that the surfaces and floors and windows needed cleaning. The landlord says that they got the property cleaned to see if it would come up to a standard where it could be re rented without refurbishment, but as it did not do so the landlord continued with refurbishment.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
Having seen the video of the property taken on 10 May, I consider that the landlord should be award $350.00 for cleaning.
I am satisfied that the tenant failed to quit the premises in accordance with s 40 (1)(e) and then failed to give back all of the keys and security devices, as a result the landlord had to change the locks. I therefore award the landlord the cost of changing the locks $526.50.
The amounts ordered are proved. The landlord’s claim for unlawful use of the property.
The landlord tested the property for methamphetamine at the end of tenancy. They confirmed today that they had not completed any pre tenancy methamphetamine testing. This makes it difficult to prove that any contamination of the property was caused by these tenants whilst in the tenancy.
In any case the levels of methamphetamine are well below the levels of 15 ug/ 100 cm3, which the Tribunal normally regards as being the level of contamination.
The landlord has not proven that the tenants used methamphetamine or contaminated the premises with methamphetamine and therefore their claim for the cost of testing is dismissed. Disposal of the food truck/ caravan.
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods that the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant left her food truck/ caravan at the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided evidence today that he had tried to contact her to arrange for the truck to be picked up. The tenant has not picked the truck up.
On the 28 August 2024, following a Tribunal hearing where the landlord was told to make contact with the tenant to have her pick up the food truck/ caravan, the landlord did so, by text. The tenant made a time to come and pick up the caravan but never did so. The caravan remains on site some 5 months after the tenancy ended.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the caravan to the tenant. The caravan/ food truck has a value above the cost of storing, transporting and selling . The landlord must sell these goods at a reasonable market price.
The landlord may deduct any amount owing from the sale proceeds, and must pay the balance to the Bond Centre. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2),(3) and (4), 62C(1)(b),(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The tenant’s claim.
The tenant claims the landlord has taken her food truck.
A landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. See section 33(1) and (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 33(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
As indicated above the landlord provided evidence today that he has tried to return the food truck/ caravan to the tenant but she has not come and collected it at the time arranged.
I am satisfied that the landlord has not seized or disposed of Ms Gray’s goods, it is because of the tenant’s failure to come and retrieve the truck at the time arranged that the landlords still have possession of her truck. Accordingly, the tenant’s application is dismissed. The filing fee
Because the landlords have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed them with the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4894940 — Rent arrears at 46 King Street, Waiuku, Waiuku 2123

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4894940 — Rent arrears at 46 King Street, Waiuku, Waiuku 2123

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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